Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Portugal

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with the Portuguese Government about aid to Portugal; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I met Major Antunes on 7th October with other members of the European Council of Ministers and discussed with him the Community's offer of aid. An EEC mission subsequently visited Portugal to discuss the mechanics of implementing this aid offer and satisfactory progress was made. The Government also have a bilateral technical assistance programme to Portugal. In addition, we have made available an RAF VC-10 to take part in the Portuguese airlift from Angola and will be making a contribution to aid for Angolan refugees after they have arrived in Portugal.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the entire support of the whole country in his efforts to promote and encourage democracy in Portugal? Will he tell us his latest information about Russian aid to the Portuguese Communist Party? Does he feel

that it is in the spirit of the Helsinki agreement?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said. It is our view that the people of Portugal have the right to choose for themselves what Government and régime they should have, and we do not welcome any interference from outside. I am not able to give any information about such Russian aid.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as our own resources are very limited, he should welcome aid being given to Portugal by any country?

Mr. Callaghan: It depends how that aid is given. If it is in the form of an attempt to achieve a particular political end by covert means, I do not think that it would be welcome.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the prospect for elections, which have been promised in Spain for next February? I am sorry, I mean the elections in Portugal—perhaps there is something to be said on both counts. Is not it a fact that the chance of those free elections being held in Portugal is very remote? Would it not be right for our continued aid to Portugal to rest in large measure on whether the elections are held on or about the promised date?

Mr. Callaghan: I and my colleagues in the Community would not like to make the giving of aid conditional on the holding of elections at a fixed time. It has been generally understood that elections will be held and the Portuguese Government, who, in my view, represent most of the people in Portugal, are making valiant efforts to establish control over the country, although there are people attempting to upset their hold. It should be our stance to give every-assistance to the Portuguese Government to establish their position.

USSR

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to Moscow.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Soviet Union.

Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend or the Foreign Secretary has the opportunity of consulting the Soviet authorities, here or in the Soviet Union, will he draw to their attention the case of Academician Benjamin Levich, who has been awarded a fellowship at University College, Oxford, and who was promised that he could leave Russia with his wife this month or next, but who has now been told by the KGB that they may never go? Will my right hon. Friends explain to the Soviet authorities that when they treat people like this, their signature on the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement is not worth the paper it is written on?

Mr. Hattersley: We have continually drawn the attention of the Soviet authorities to this sort of case, both before the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement and since. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Sproat: If the Foreign Secretary visits Moscow, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage him to consider the possibility of bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on the lines of the successful negotiations conducted by the Prime Minister in Bucharest last month? Might it be possible to get some agreement on monthly monitoring, as the Prime Minister did in relation to trade? Could the right hon. Gentleman also say when British journalists will get the same visa facilities as Americans, following the Helsinki CSCE agreement?

Mr. Hattersley: I understand that the visa situation for British journalists has considerably improved and that multi-entry visas are at least in prospect if not already granted. I am glad the hon. Member applauded some of the achievements of the recent past. We still want to examine whether they can be repeated with other countries in Eastern Europe, but each country needs a prescription and a remedy of its own.

Prison Sentences (Diplomatic Protests)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what criteria he takes into account in considering whether Her Majesty's Government should make public diplomatic protests over the sentences of

punishment awarded to foreign nationals convicted and sentenced in the courts of their homelands.

Mr. James Callaghan: The points I take into account include, in particular, whether there is anything in the circumstances of the trial or the sentence which causes serious concern on humanitarian or human rights grounds, the likelihood of our being able to exert a beneficial or moderating influence, the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other countries and whether this country or our relations are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by any consequences of such events.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, on those criteria, it is difficult to understand why he has not made protests to many of the authoritarian Left-wing régimes about incidents far beyond the scale of those in which the murderers of policemen were executed? What is his view of such incidents as the murder of people who as refugees are merely trying to leave those vicious Left-wing regimes for which he seems to have more tender susceptibilities than for a country such as Spain?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the hon. Member can follow these matters very closely, because otherwise he would be aware of two facts. The first is that there were ample reasons for concern on humanitarian and human rights grounds about the recent Spanish trials and executions, a concern shared by all members of the Community. Secondly, as I have said in listing the criteria, I have to consider in what circumstances representation will have a beneficial influence. Sometimes representations are made in public while at other times they are made in private. The hon. Member should not assume that if he does not hear that they have been made, they have not been made.

Mr. Maudling: Is not the Foreign Secretary prepared to condemn what he believes to be injustice wherever it may take place?

Mr. Callaghan: I have made that clear on nearly every occasion when Conservative Members have sought to extract from me pledges that I most willingly give. If I were to read to the House the list of cases in which we have thought it right


to make representations—I do not think that would help much—the allegation by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would be seen to be totally unfounded.

Mr. Beith: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in this difficult problem countries wishing to be seen as allies or friends of Britain need not be surprised if the British Government make clear that they regard a fair trial as an essential condition in any democracy with which they are concerned?

Mr. Callaghan: I utterly agree. I do not believe that trials by military courts, summary trials for capital offences, difficulties placed in the way of the defence, the death penalty being given after a summary trial or reports of torture being used to extract confessions are likely to commend themselves to anybody in this country, although there might be one or two exceptions.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the guidelines he has indicated would permit the Government to make representations to the Government of France in a case such as that of Yann Foueré, who was to have addressed a meeting in Wales last weekend but who was imprisoned in France on a trumped-up charge?

Mr. Callaghan: I read about that case in the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo last weekend. I shall consider what the hon. Member has said. It is not always best to handle these matters by way of public representations. We have achieved some very good results on occasions by making representations in private.

Rhodesia

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): In recent months there has been no direct contact with the illegal régime in Rhodesia. A statement on the Government's policy towards Rhodesia will be made during the forthcoming debate in the House on renewal of the sanctions order.

Mr. Whitehead: On the eve of that debate, has my right hon. Friend seen the report from the Christian Care organisation this week that there are more political detainees in Rhodesia now than before the Lusaka talks began? Will he urge upon the Smith régime, which appears to be without a friend, even south of the Zambesi, that it should reopen talks with both African nationalist movements and release the detainees? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent disappearance of Dr. Edson Sithole?

Mr. Ennals: The reports about the numbers of detainees are most disturbing. It is said that the number now is larger than a year ago. We have expressed our concern that so many aspects of the Lusaka agreement have not been fulfilled, and we have urged that they should be. We have made our views known to the régime both in respect of the detainees and publicly about the executions. I can make no statement about the disappearance of Dr. Edson Sithole, but we are naturally very anxious about the situation that has been created.

Mr. Farr: Why did the Foreign Office recently refuse to have anything to do with a constituent of mine who was severely injured in a car crash in Bulawayo? Is it not an utter disgrace that the only Government that would show an interest and put an end to the worrying of his parents, who are also my constituents, were the South African Government who sent a representative to the hospital in Bulawayo to inquire into the poor boy's condition?

Mr. Ennals: It is disturbing that a situation exists in Rhodesia in which there is an illegal Government which does not have diplomatic representation from the British or other Governments. Mr. Smith knows perfectly well that in order for there to be diplomatic representation, so that we could then fulfil the normal functions of such representation, there must first be a constitutional situation.

Latin America

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to visit Latin American countries.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend hopes to visit Latin America in the course of 1976.

Mr. Luce: I warmly welcome that decision. In view of the great fund of good will towards Great Britain in the Latin American countries, and the great potential of stronger trade relationships between our respective countries, will the Minister say something about the trade agreement, signed recently in London, between Brazil and Great Britain? Is it the Government's intention to extend this kind of agreement to other countries in Latin America?

Mr. Rowlands: The agreement was a memorandum of understanding, which allowed an across-the-board dialogue on political, economic and industrial matters between ourselves and Brazil. We have close relationships with many Latin American countries. The form these relationships take will depend on the wishes of individual countries in Latin America.

Mr. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the initiative that he and the Government are taking towards Latin America? Are the Government proposing any special measures to encourage British industry to take advantage of the rebuilding of bridges which is taking place?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes. Our discussions with, in particular, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister and, last week, the Brazilian Foreign Minister dealt with these issues, and the way in which we are to develop technical, economic and industrial co-operation between our countries.

Middle East

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Syria.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, but I shall be paying an official visit to the Middle East, including Syria, in early November.

Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Syria and many other countries in that area are particularly disturbed

about the proposed American sale to Israel of the Pershing missile? Is he aware that this missile is designed only for use with nuclear warheads, and that this escalation of the Middle East arms race could have profound and catastrophic consequences for the whole world? Will the Government do their best to get this piece of American diplomacy changed?

Mr. Ennals: The two sides of the House would be deeply concerned if nuclear weapons fell into the hands of any countries in the Middle East. Her Majesty's Government would certainly condemn any such acquisition. As for the Pershing missile, we should await the outcome of the Israeli request before commenting.

Mr. Hooley: What diplomatic steps are now contemplated, in concert with Western European countries, the United States, or both, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Golan area as a follow-up to the Sinai agreement?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend will know that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at the United Nations General Assembly he not only welcomed the Egypt-Israel agreement as a step towards an overall settlement but emphasised the importance of an early development in Golan to reduce tensions in the area, to be followed by negotiations on the central problem of the Palestinians and the West Bank. This is an issue with which Dr. Kissinger is deeply concerned. I am certain both sides of the House wish to see progress on it.

Mr. Walters: As the Syrian Government have for some time shown a desire to improve relations with Western Europe, including this country, and as there are very great possibilities for trade with Syria, apart from the political implications, has the right hon. Gentleman any concrete proposals to put forward when he goes to that country?

Mr. Ennals: It would not be proper to indicate at this moment the agenda for discussions that I shall be having with Ministers in Syria, although I agree that there are important opportunities for improving and expanding our political and economic relationships, and these will be very high on the agenda for our talks.

Atomic Energy

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what progress has been made by the International Atomic Energy Agency Advisory Group on the peaceful use of atomic energy.

Mr. Hattersley: The Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions—PNEs—held a successful first meeting on 30th September and 1st October in Vienna. Delegates from 39 countries, including the United Kingdom, attended the meeting and agreed on a comprehensive programme of work. They will meet again next March.

Mr. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What representations, if any, has he made to the German Government about the export of the uranium enrichment process to Brazil, which is causing some concern, because there is always the possibility that in the long term it might slip over into military uses of atomic energy?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to hypothesise on the possibilities of the one agreement to which my hon. Friend referred, but the entire basis of our policy is the fear that the distinction between "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" is not one that can legitimately be made and the desire to make sure that the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers do not arise. It is best that I should not deal this afternoon with the specific proposal, but I assure my hon. Friend that the recent meeting and the one to follow are intended to avoid problems of exactly that sort.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the speech last week by Mr. Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, appealing to the nuclear weapons States to cease carrying out nuclear tests so as to discourage nuclear proliferation? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that that appeal is considered carefully before a final decision is taken on a future British nuclear test?

Mr. Hattersley: That appeal will be considered carefully. My hon. Friend will recall statements already made in the

House on this subject. I have nothing to add to them.

Spain

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government to indicate to the Government of Spain their condemnation of the recent executions of Basque Nationalists and members of other minority groups and of the policies generally followed by the Spanish Government.

Mr. James Callaghan: Representations have been made at a high level on a number of occasions, including my discussion with the Spanish Foreign Minister in New York in advance of the executions, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message to the Spanish Prime Minister. Britain also took part as members of the European Community in joint démarches and statements.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government would not in any circumstances contemplate the admission of Spain into the EEC, or any relationship with the EEC, while a repressive régime of the kind in power there now continues the sort of policies that led to the executions?

Mr. Callaghan: I have made that clear, and I repeat it now. It may be that we are on the verge of a new movement in Spain. We must wait and see, and hope, for the sake of the Spanish people and of Europe, that that is so. There are many tendencies at work in Spain today. I can only hope that a situation will be created in which it will be possible for Europe and Spain to come closer together.

Mr. Amery: In answer to an earlier Question the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary indicated that in deciding whether to make an official protest he had to consider whether it would be beneficial, thereby, I assume, indicating that it was no bloody use making representations to the Soviet bloc. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representations that he made to Spain have immensely strengthened the remaining pro-Fascist elements in Spain and have done great harm to the moderate elements?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman should not make any assumption.


whether bloody or otherwise, of the kind he made in the first part of his question. As for the representations to Spain, in which we took separate action and combined action with many other countries I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, whether as a result of the protests and appeals or not, six of the 11 sentenced were reprieved. It would be hard for the right hon. Gentleman to deduce that the appeals we made and the representations made by many other countries had no effect.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Why not let Spain come into the EEC? She would be much worse off there than outside it.

Mr. Callaghan: If the Spanish people, on the basis of a referendum, decided by three to one that they wanted to come in, I certainly would not object, provided the referendum was conducted democratically.

Mr. Maudling: Why have the right hon. Gentleman's representations to Spain alone been in public and his many representations to other countries been in private?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep picking at this—

Mr. Maudling: I do.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, let me give him the answer. If he consults his records, the right hon. Gentleman will find that these representations are not the only ones to have been made public. They concerned particularly sensitive issues that aroused deep emotion in many parts of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman may not share it, but many other people do.

South Africa (British Immigrants)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the treatment of British immigrants in South Africa.

Mr. Ennals: I am not aware of any widespread problems concerning the treatment of British immigrants in South Africa, but where difficulties are encountered in individual cases our consular posts are always ready to offer assistance.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 25th June I was informed in the House that the new First Secretary at the Foreign Office would be visiting South Africa to discuss the problems of British immigrant workers? Did the First Secretary have any comments to make on his return, particularly about the possibility of assisted passages or loans for stranded British workers and their families, to enable them to return here after being lured out to that racialist country by misleading advertisements and propaganda?

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the advertisements are very misleading about the conditions that people will find in South Africa. It is useful that my hon. Friend should have raised the subject.
The recently-appointed First Secretary (Labour) has been to the factories of the International Steel Corporation of South Africa in Newcastle and has discussed these matters with ISCSA and some of the British workers concerned. There are opportunities for repatriation by the South African Government. It has been suggested that my hon. Friend should discuss with the South African Department of Immigration the case of one of his constituents.

Cyprus

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus and the Government's policy on this matter.

Miss Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Cyprus.

Mr. James Callaghan: With our partners in the Nine, Her Majesty's Government are working actively for a resumption of the intercommunal talks on a substantive basis. Although no progress was made in the meeting between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash in New York in September, there is general agreement that this is the best forum for progress towards a settlement.

Mr. Townsend: What representations have the Government made to the Turkish Government about the settling of Turkish families from the Turkish


mainland in Northern Cyprus? What are the Government doing to try to ameliorate the plight of some 200,000 Greek Cypriote facing their second winter in the refugee camps?

Mr. Callaghan: Representations have been made to the Turkish authorities on the matter of refugees, and I believe that answers have been given to the hon. Gentleman on it. The best prospects for a settlement of the Greek Cypriot refugees is that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash should come to an agreement on the matter. I know of no other way that is likely to yield results.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he was in opposition and was an advocate of Parliament as a whole, rather than the Executive, taking the major decisions in foreign affairs? How does he account for the fact that on 12th November in the United Nations the United Kingdom will be moving towards an altogether different concept in Cyprus, without the authority of Parliament, and that there is now every indication that we are moving towards a recognition of the Turkish zone in the island?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not recognise either the description of what I used to say in opposition or any contradiction with what I now do. I have always recognised that it is the responsibility of the Government to take executive decisions in these matters and that it is for Parliament to exercise its function of oversight, challenge, censure or even, occasionally, support.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will Her Majesty's Government consult the American Government to see that very soon the refugees have proper housing? Grants should be given to enable the refugees to have prefabricated housing. President Makarios would like the refugees to be under proper cover this winter, and it could be done. That is the humane aspect.
My second question is to ask how long the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will be before there will be forthcoming from Ankara—from Mr. Demirel, supported by Mr. Ecevit—proposals of some concessions in Cyprus, if they are forthcoming at all. If they are not forthcoming fairly soon, how long are we to wait before

exerting international pressure on the Turks?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have been in the lead on this matter throughout. There is no other country that has done more to assist the refugees in Cyprus. I do not have the figures at my disposal, but I think that I can legitimately claim that the House and country have met their responsibilities. I shall certainly have discussions with other countries, including the Community and the United States, to see whether a combined effort can be made to deal with the plight of the refugees. That might even relieve us to some extent. I saw them in the depths of last winter and their plight is not one that I would want anyone to experience. There is constant communication with the Turkish Government. I cannot say when they are likely to put forward proposals. The exchanges that go on are confidential, but they are continual.

Mrs. Jeger: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important for the talks to go on, does he agree that any real settlement must go far beyond the competence of Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash and must be a matter of international affairs? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about any conversations or discussions that have been proceeding with the United States or the Turks, or with the committee set up by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Kingston some months ago, to try to reach a political solution to this problem?

Mr. Callaghan: I had discussions with Mr. Caglayangil, the Turkish Foreign Minister, in New York on 25th September. The Prime Minister and I had discussions with Mr. Karamanlis, the Prime Minister of Greece, and Mr. Bitsios when they came to London about a fortnight ago. Both of them know our views clearly, which is that although we recognise that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are the prime executives in this matter, considerable influence can be exerted by the Turkish and the Greek Governments. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. We believe that this is the right way to pursue the matter. We shall continue to do so in this way. The Commonwealth experts have also met on two occasions.

Icelandic Fisheries

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in regard to Iceland's fishing limits.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with the Icelandic Government over fisheries limits.

Mr. Hattersley: An Icelandic delegation led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Icelandic Minister of Industry, visited London for official talks on 23rd and 24th October.
It was then agreed that scientific and technical discussions on the state of the fish stocks off Iceland should be held by British and Icelandic fisheries experts as soon as possible and that a further meeting at ministerial level should take place in the light of those discussions. While we did not make as much progress as I hoped during last week's meetings, negotiations are still continuing and we must continue to hope that it will be possible to reach a satisfactory agreement to replace the one which expires on 13th November.

Mr. Henderson: In the course of these discussions, will the Minister take into account the fact that Iceland has a quota of almost 22,000 tons of herring in the North Sea and off the West Coast and that it would be extremely favourable to our fishermen if, as part of this arrangement, Iceland's quota of herring could be transferred to our fishermen in exchange for any concessions?

Mr. Hattersley: That proposal would go far outside the established intentions that we have had since this issue was first mooted and discussed two years ago. The important objective, and one I still hope to achieve, is to make sure that those British fishermen who traditionally fish in the waters now claimed by Iceland should continue to do so. That must be my primary objective.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he is pursuing the negotiations? Will he be fortified by the knowledge that all quarters of the House are anxious

to see an agreement to the benefit of British fishermen?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I emphasise to him how important and helpful it has been to those of us who have carried on the British side of this discussion to know that the British political parties and all sections of British interests have been determined that an honourable and just settlement should come about. It enabled me to tell the representatives of the Icelandic Government that, although strong feelings were held on the subject in Iceland, similar feelings were held in Great Britain. That was a great help during the first two stages of the negotiations.

Mr. Wall: Although there must be some flexibility in negotiation when deciding the amount of fish to be caught in various areas off Iceland, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to maintain the rights of British fishermen to fish up to the limits under the present agreement? If, as we hope does not happen, agreement is not reached for the future, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British fishermen are given all necessary protection?

Mr. Hattersley: I can answer "Yes" to both questions. If the agreement is not renewed or replaced by 13th November, there is no doubt about what the rights of the British fishing industry are. Those rights have been established by the International Court of Justice. Clearly, the British fishing industry will continue to exercise those rights. We hope that they will be exercised with moderation and restraint. In so doing the British trawler industry must have the protection of Her Majesty's Government, and it will.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement to the effect that there will be adequate protection for British fishermen after 13th November if there is no settlement will be warmly welcomed in all the fishing ports, particularly on Humberside? Is he further aware that it is important to stress to the Icelandic Government the severe unemployment situation in many of our fishing areas, again particularly on Humberside? Is it not the case that the Icelandic standard of living is far in excess of the ordinary British fisherman's living


standard, while the Icelandic unemployment figures are low compared with ours?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that these discussions should not be carried on as though Great Britain were a powerful and rich nation attempting to exploit a small and weak nation. Great Britain is attempting to establish, re-establish and confirm rights granted and confirmed under international legal conditions. We are attempting to do that with a country with which we have the friendliest relations, but a country whose income per head is a great deal higher than that in Great Britain and whose unemployment is negligible. Those factors have to be borne in mind.

Economic Co-operation (International Conference)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will be represented at the World Energy Conference expected to open in Paris on 16th December.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will confirm that Great Britain will have independent representation at the forthcoming World Energy Conference.

Mr. James Callaghan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 20th October. The issue is not settled yet.—[Vol. 898, c. 28–32.]

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Conservative Party election manifesto of October 1974 it was stated that a first essential requirement would be for the British people to retain control of the maximum benefits from our offshore oil? Does he agree that those sentiments enshrine great wisdom? Does he further accept that his present policy of securing the legitimate national interests in this forthcoming conference command wide support, both in the House and in the country?

Mr. Callaghan: On this exceptional occasion I am happy to agree with the Conservative Party manifesto. When the hon. Gentleman was reading it out I wondered whether he was addressing it to me or to some of his colleagues.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend remember that during the

referendum campaign some of us said publicly that the other EEC countries would want to control our great oil asset, and particularly the price at which it was sold? Was not that denied by Government spokesmen? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the strength of the support that he has for saying "No" with respect to this vital British asset?

Mr. Callaghan: There have been no attempts so far to secure control of British oil. That should be made clear in fairness to our Community partners. What we are discussing is whether an energy policy for the whole of the Community will be of benefit to all nine members, including Britain. So far that has not been demonstrated as far as I can see. What we are discussing is representation at a conference. This is a procedural matter and it is this procedure which has still to be settled.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a vital matter and not a procedural matter? Does he accept that it would destroy Britain's credibility to emulate the Grand Old Duke of York and to have a sell-out after standing so firm? In the discussions that have taken place, has it been clarified whether membership of the EEC would make it impossible for Britain to seek to join OPEC if we chose to do so?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I do not think it would. If that occasion arose, it might be that the OPEC rules would prevent our joining. I understand that one of the rules of OPEC is that oil must be a country's major export if it is to be an OPEC member. I do not think that it will be our major export, even though it will be an important export. I do not think that anything in the rules of the EEC would prevent our joining.
As for where we stand on this matter, I remind the hon. Gentleman and others like him that I did not notice much interest in these matters on their part until I went to Brussels and said what I thought the British position should be. It would seem that some of them might have woken up on these matters a little earlier.

Mr. Luard: Has my right hon. Friend considered a compromise by which Britain might be designated as a nation to represent the EEC at the conference in return for allowing some other members


of the EEC to represent the Community in the other committees at the conference?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that that question arises yet. There are a number of places for industrialised countries at the conference, the conference having been arranged by France and called by France. I have made a claim for one of them. That is how the situation stands.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that whereas Scotland will be an oil exporter within nine months, England never will be? Does he agree that the appropriate representative from the United Kingdom at the conference should be a Scottish Minister to represent the Scottish national interest in oil? In view of the current developments of devolution, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what representations have been made by his Department about concurrent Scottish representation at international conferences once the Scottish Assembly has been established?

Mr. Callaghan: The conference is concerned not only with oil but with international financial matters, development, help to developing countries and raw materials. I do not know of any special Scottish claim that exceeds that of Wales—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Oh!

Mr. Callaghan: —or England, put Wales first because I represent a Welsh I constituency. I hope and believe that the United Kingdom Government will continue to represent the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is genuine concern that in his attempts to defend one British interest he has damaged other important British interests? Is it not a fact that, apart from North Sea oil, we have a vital interest in the cohesion of the Community and in the success of the forthcoming conference, which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, covers a wide spectrum? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make his maximum effort to ensure that in defending what be believes to be our interest he will not in any way damage other equally important interests?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better settle his affairs with his own party before he takes that kind of line. I know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
The plain truth is that what we are discussing is a question of representation. That will not affect the substance of the dialogue when it begins. Questions of representation, who goes and which of the 27 countries will be represented there are matters entirely separate from what is said when we get there. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should help those other people in other countries who are trying to prevent Britain from going by making that sort of point.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Middle East

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EEC Ministers regarding the Arab-Israeli situation; and what is his policy toward the Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories.

Mr. James Callaghan: I discuss the Arab-Israeli situation regularly with my colleagues from the rest of the Nine, the last occasion being on 18th October: the details of our discussions are of course confidential. I regret any action by a party to the dispute which is likely to make the achievement of a just and lasting solution in the Middle East more difficult.

Mr. Thorne: As my right hon. Friend's knowledge of Zionist settlements in that part of the Middle East may have improved since he replied to a Question on 5th August, and following that assumed improvement in his knowledge, has he made any direct representations to the Israeli Government on this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is "No".

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the United Nations, at which the votes of the Arab-Soviet bloc on Middle Eastern matters make a persistent mockery of the organisation, the recent united efforts of the EEC countries to prevent the isolation of Israel are as fair as they are important?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not wish to embark on a review of the general attitude of the Arab States towards Israel, or vice versa, in a supplementary answer. What is clear is that the recent agreement between Egypt and Israel has carried the matter a stage further. I hope that this will be pursued in relation to Syria and Israel.

Mr. Luce: Is it not the case that the existence of Israeli settlements in Arab occupied territory is inimical to peaceful progress in that part of the world? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge EEC Ministers to take a common line and to make representations to Israel on this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that that will emerge except as part of another step or as part of a comprehensive settlement.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is partisan and unacceptable that the EEC Parliament should make political protests about bomb attacks within Israel by guerrilla groups but make no protest about the official action of the armed forces of Israel, both military and air, against Lebanon?

Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to comment on the activities of the European Parliament.

Economic Co-operation (International Conference)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom acts independently within the Common Market on all matters affecting the control and distribution of North Sea oil.

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of his attitude towards oil policy, recently announced to the European Council of Ministers, and in connection with the forthcoming energy conference, whether it is now his intention to bring about a European energy policy within which the United Kingdom will play a full part.

Mr. James Callaghan: I would refer hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on 21st October.—[Vol. 898, c. 211.]

Mr. Skinner: What is the point of seemingly fighting so hard for a seat at the conference table when from an earlier answer by my right hon. Friend it seems that we are in the process of backing down? What is the point of fighting so hard when at the same time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is so negligent about speeding up the participation plans for North Sea oil? Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Germany is taking full advantage of the delay by carving out large chunks of North Sea oil territory for West German companies?
Why does not my right hon. Friend have a word with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and suggest to him that the participation plans should be speeded up, assuming that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can find the time to do so when he is so busily engaged on the many other matters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has handed out to him in the past few months?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend's question seems to be more than 90 per cent. directed towards my right hon. Friend rather than to me. I shall gladly have a word with my right hon. Friend on many important subjects because I value his advice, his experience, his skill and his constant attendance.

Mr. John Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is at present no provision, either within the treaties or in any subsequent Act of the Community, depriving Britain of the control of its North Sea asset?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I gladly do that. I did so in answer to an earlier question and I do so again now. There is nothing that can deprive us of the control of our assets. If we decide that it is to our advantage to have a European energy policy, that is a matter for us. If we decide that we do not want to take part in such a policy, that, too, is a matter for us.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if decisions are taken at the forthcoming energy conference which are considered contrary to the national interests of Scotland, there is no guarantee that the forthcoming Scottish Government will underwrite them?

Mr. Callaghan: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I take it that the independent Scottish Parliament will accept any international treaties that have been entered into by its predecessor.

Mr. Heffer: Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 690, which gives him full backing in his stand on British representation at the international energy conference? That motion is signed by 175 Members, of whom 172 are Labour Members.

Mr. Skinner: Including me.

Mr. Heffer: Including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who, for his own reasons, wants to make that point. Will my right hon. Friend give a clear statement that, contrary to Press reports, there will be no compromise and that the Government will be firm in their view that we should have our own seat at this important conference?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not wish to comment on Press reports. I have made no approaches to any other Government on this matter—except to say to the Nine and the United States Government that we claim a separate seat. If anybody has any proposals to put to us on that matter, I shall consider them.

Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a considered reply to my earlier supplementary question? Is it not a fact that we have an interest in North Sea oil and also in the cohesion of the Community and in what he describes as procedural matters going to the heart of the Community? Will he give an undertaking that we shall make a maximum effort to reconcile these differing British interests?

Mr. Callaghan: The continuuing process is an attempt to reconcile differing interests. Sometimes they can be reconciled; at other times they cannot be. I do not know whether it will be possible to reconcile those interests. It is for others to say, and they understand our position. If they wish to reconcile interests, it will be up to them to come to me with propositions, which we shall be glad to entertain. As for the future of the Community, I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I have seen it go through

worse things than this, and with the use of much stronger language. He should not be too worried about the situation.

Political Union

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he can now state when the Council of Ministers is likely to receive the Tindemans report on political union.

Mr. Hattersley: The Belgian Prime Minister was asked by the Community Heads of Government to prepare the report by the end of 1975. M. Tindemans has not yet announced exactly when he expects to complete his study.

Mr. Moate: Did the Minister see reports last week to the effect that weekend discussions about political union had been attended by the Belgian and Dutch Prime Ministers, the West German Chancellor, Ministers from France and Italy and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? Although this was presumably a private meeting, can we be told whether a British Minister was present or invited? Are the Government satisfied that there has been an adequate dialogue between the Government and M. Tindemans to ensure that more realistic views about political union are easily understood by the British people?

Mr. Hattersley: I have no comment to make on that weekend meeting. No British Minister was there or, so far as I know, invited. It was a private occasion. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as important decisions on this matter are approached, there will be meetings at all levels in the Community. I assure the House that when we are in a position to take soundings on the report and to make recommendations about our attitude, there will be proper consultation with all interests, including all the political parties.

Mr. Corbett: How does my right hon. Friend propose to consult the British people about political union?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that we can do so as successfully as we did on 5th June last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Another referendum?"] The method is something about which my hon. Friend should not make any assumptions. The report produced by M. Tindemans will give advice


on a number of complex matters. It will be for Her Majesty's Government, the House of Commons and various other institutions in Great Britain to decide how they stand on that issue. We must then determine where Britain's interest lies.

United Kingdom Membership

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received since the EEC referendum on any legal impediments to the enacting by Parliament of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Community.

Mr. Hattersley: None, Sir.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that most people will accept that the desirability of Parliament ever legislating Britain out of the Community would have to take account of the results of the referendum and of any future expression of opinion by the public in an election or otherwise? Does he recall that successive Lord Chancellors have emphatically declared that there is no legal impediment to Parliament taking this course, if it so wishes? Will he reafirm that that is still the view of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Hattersley: I distinctly remember the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor on 28th May in which he referred to judgments made by his predecessors confirming the legal point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is right to say that the legal position is clear—namely, that a British Parliament does not commit its successors and that the necessary legislation could be passed.
But that is not the essential issue. The essential issue relates to the views of the British people as to where British interests lie and as to the economic arrangements that we have made with the Community. Therefore, although I confirm my hon. Friend's remarks about the Lord Chancellor's views, I do not think that that attitude faces the reality of our decision.

European Parliament (Elections)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs what representations he has received about direct elections to the European Parliament and on the electoral system to be used in such elections.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce the Government's conclusions on the question of direct elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Member means formal representations from individuals or organisations, the answer is "None, Sir". The whole question is currently the subject of discussions in the Community, and we are giving it careful study. The Government's position will be announced in due course.

Sir A. Meyer: Since this is not an issue where our short-term national interests apparently oblige us to put at risk the cohesion of the Community, could we not, for once, show ourselves to be positive and constructive by pressing for early direct elections on the basis of fair representation?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed by the treaty to which we are now party eventually to take part in direct elections. He will also know that the arranging of direct elections and the taking of decisions about them are a complicated business. Many questions have to be answered about organisation, size of constituency and many other things. I am sure that the House does not want us to rush towards a complicated decision that in the end might turn out to be against the interests of this Parliament and this country.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister believe that direct elections are possible by 1978? Furthermore, whatever else the Government may decide, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall not try to harmonise election procedures for direct elections but stick to our own procedures?

Mr. Hattersley: Anybody who believes in the possibility of the holding of elections by 1978 is being very optimistic indeed. I do not wish to comment on any of the details of how those elections should be held. They will have to be discussed when we take a considered


view over the next months and years. Until we can look at the matter as a whole, I do not wish to make any comment on individual suggestions.

Mr. Gardiner: In such a complicated matter, would it not be wise to recognise that, whatever the final decision, preparations for direct elections will have to be spread over a considerable period of time? Therefore, would it not be wise for the Government to set up some kind of machinery now and to begin to consider the matter and its implications so that the British public can be adequately informed?

Mr. Hattersley: As to future processes and the way in which decisions should be carried out, there will have to be means by which the parties are consulted and by which people's views may be built into Government recommendations. I am not sure whether the time is exactly ripe for that, but I am sure that the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is right.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend agree that so long as the European Parliament is as weak and uninfluential as it is, it does not matter whether members are elected or nominated? Will he bear in mind one important argument? If there are direct elections, will he see that nominations are not confined to Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords?

Mr. Hattersley: The wisdom of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary commends itself to me, although I am reluctant to comment on individual suggestions about elections to the European Parliament. As for the power and influence of the European Parliament; we have to understand that it exists according to the treaties and that we are committed to direct elections. In addition, there are a number of useful jobs that the Parliament can do. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a speech in Liverpool some weeks ago, suggested that the European Parliament might have some powers over Government expenditure—not so much a question of control, but of examining whether moneys had been spent prudently—a power such as that already exercised by Committees of the House. If we want that kind of scrutiny, we shall have to

take the European Parliament seriously, and that Her Majesty's Government certainly intend to do.

Greece

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards a further enlargement of the European Community by the admission of Greece.

Mr. James Callaghan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Arnold: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government will be in no way prejudiced towards these negotiations by continuing opposition inside Greece to certain aspects of the newly promulgated Greek constitution?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I do not think we are involved in the internal situation there. We welcomed Greece's application when it was made, and the Prime Minister confirmed our unreserved support to Mr. Karamanlis when he visited London earlier this month.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all parties in Greece, both Government and Opposition, are united in their anxiety and desire for Greece to become a full member of the EEC at the earliest opportunity? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we in Britain are not only in favour of the accession of Greece to the EEC but wish to ease Greece's future opportunities by the appropriate transitional arrangements that may be required?

Mr. Callaghan: That is looking rather a long way ahead. A negotiating mandate has first to be prepared and is now under study by the Commission. It will be brought to the Community members in due course—I hope by the end of this year—and then we shall have to see how the negotiations can be conducted.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper there are Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I know that he is very keen and eager to answer them. On odd occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have extended Question Time to allow such


Questions to be taken. May I ask you, Sir, whether in future you could rule that time will be allocated by your good self to the answering of these Questions?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to Question No. 60, which is to the Secretary of State for Education and Science but was originally directed at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, asking him to outline his plans for encouraging oil companies to engage in sponsorship of the arts? The Table Office accepted the Question but the Department subsequently rejected it. I understand from the Table Office that it has a certain amount of difficulty in defining the exact sphere of Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Since the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster often appears to be the next most powerful person in the Cabinet to the Prime Minister, may I ask you, Sir, whether a statement could be given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster so that the exact and precise area of his responsibility could be defined and so that back benchers like myself, who are custodians of the Labour Party manifesto, could ensure that some degree of scrutiny was enforced on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Unless that statement is forthcoming, we can go for months with Questions being rejected by the Table Office or, after being accepted by the Table Office, rejected subsequently by the Department of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Knowing your usual eagerness to protect the interests of Members of the House, may I draw attention to the fact that this is not the first occasion on which it has not proved possible to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has an important portfolio? Although we are pleased to see him here—he can do less damage while here than in his negotiations with the North Sea oil companies—we should be even more pleased if on occasions he would answer Questions.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support hon. Members in the complaint about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hardly ever

appearing here to answer Questions. I raised this matter last week with the Prime Minister, who also refused to reply. Would it not be possible, with regard to the energy responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for him to be given five minutes at least at the end of Questions to the Department of Energy until such time as his responsibilities in this matter are transferred to the Secretary of State for Energy?

Mr. Gow: Mr. Gow rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I want to hear any more points of order.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not solve all these points of order if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were to seek your leave to answer the Questions that are addressed to him?

Mr. Speaker: First, the transfer of Questions is not a matter for me. It is solely a ministerial responsibility.
Concerning the point whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should answer Questions, although it is not a matter for me—the roster is arranged through the usual channels by those in charge of the business of the House—my own view is that the system should be rearranged so that there was a day on which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be available to answer Questions. It very seldom happens. That is as far as I can go in helping the hon. Member.

Mr. John Mendelson: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Far from even approaching any suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is not here or does not want to answer Questions, in my experience, and within the knowledge of many hon. Members, my right hon. Friend has been here on occasions when the Questions were not reached. He has on occasions answered Questions to many of us willingly and fully.
Purely on the practical point, however, my right hon. Friend occupies the very influential office of economic adviser to the Prime Minister and he also speaks publicly at various functions. Only within the last few days, he has been addressing important associations of


business men and others in pronouncing upon Goverment policy. This being so, there is every reason why a great deal of time should be made available for him so that he may answer Questions in the House of Commons. I hope that this suggestion can be taken on board in a completely neutral fashion, without anything critical of my right hon. Friend remaining. If he could be given permission to add a word to that now, it would help us a great deal.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be proper for me indirectly to acquaint the House with the fact that I am just as eager to gratify the weight of the curiosity of the House of Commons as some hon. Members are to have this burden of frustration relieved? I, like you, Mr. Speaker, am a servant of the rules and structure of the House, but I shall ensure that your comments and those of hon. Members are brought to the notice of those who may make decisions in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This really is becoming an abuse. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, he has only to ask my permission and he will readily be given it.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This kind of difficulty with the roster frequently arises, and you are always in the position of having to say that it is not for you to fix up the roster as this is done through the usual channels. Is not the real solution to the problem that it ought to be your decision? I am sure that most hon. Members would be much more satisfied if it were a matter for your decision. Therefore, can you please have this responsibility taken out of the hands of the usual channels and put into your own?

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made the point that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should see you about getting on to this so-called roster, or that somebody should make representations on his behalf, but is not the real difficulty that if my right hon. Friend made such a request and the request were to be accepted, he would be answering Questions every day of the week? He is responsible in part for textiles, he is responsible in part for educa-

tion and science questions and for matters affecting the arts. He is also responsible for matters affecting energy and for matters affecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department. That is the real difficulty. He could not present himself to answer Questions on all those matters on all those days.

Mr. Speaker: That is very interesting. With regard to the hon. Member's suggestion, if the House were to decide to entrust me with this responsibility I would willingly accept it.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we not solve this very simply by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking your leave now to answer these Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

LEBANON (UNITED KINGDOM NATIONALS)

Mr. Goodhart (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the position of British citizens in the Lebanon.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): There are about 3,000 United Kingdom nationals remaining in the Lebanon. The ambassador has today reported that, as far as is known, all United Kingdom nationals are safe and well and there have been no reports of any being injured in the recent heavy fighting. He has advised all United Kingdom nationals whose presence is not required in the country to leave while normal air services are operating. The ambassador is ready to give further advice to the British community should he consider this necessary.

Mr. Goodhart: As the road between the city of Beirut and the airport is particularly vulnerable, will the Foreign Secretary say whether there are any contingency plans to evacuate by sea the victims of violence, if necessary?
As there seems also to be a grave shortage of medical supplies in Beirut, will the Foreign Secretary say whether we have made any offers of medical assistance to the Lebanese Government?


Further, as Beirut has for many years been one of the most pleasant and, indeed, tolerant cities in the Middle East, is it right that the Western community should seem to stand completely aside while Beirut is blown to bits?

Mr. Callaghan: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, at the moment British Airways and most other airlines are operating normally through Beirut during daylight hours, so that there has been no difficulty over transport for persons wishing to leave. We are in close touch with British Airways, and we would make alternative plans to evacuate United Kingdom nationals if it became necessary.
The hon. Gentleman next asked about medical supplies. The Minister of State informs me that this is a matter being considered at the moment, and we shall give such information as we can as soon as a decision is taken.
As for the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question, this is a matter to which I give daily attention. I am in touch with other Governments about it—those in the Middle East, those in Europe, and the United States Government. I shall be discussing the matter further with my colleagues in the Community on Thursday. But so far we have not seen any action which could usefully be taken. If there were any, we should take it.

Mr. David Watkins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the current tragic situation in Beirut, access to and egress from the British embassy there is in any way impaired? Are channels of communication between our embassy and the Lebanese Government fully operative?

Mr. Callaghan: Our embassy is in no greater danger than anywhere else in Beirut at present. I have sent a message to the ambassador and his staff, with which I am sure the House will agree, congratulating them on the way in which they are carrying out their duties under very great stress at the moment.
As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, our ambassador hopes to see Mr. Karami, the Prime Minister, today. Normal channels of communication are open. But, as my hon. Friend wil realise, the Lebanese Prime Minister is under very heavy pressure at the moment.

Mr. Maudling: This is a grave and tragic situation not only by reason of the suffering of the people of a country which is lovely and should be happy but also because of the real threat to the stability of the Middle East. The Opposition support the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the embassy staff, and we assure him that, if there is anything which he can do to help in the situation, he will have our full support.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman on both counts. It is not lack of enterprise or will in terms of whether we should intervene; it is a matter of knowing whether we would improve the situation by so doing. The combined views of those of us who have been discussing these matters by telegram, telephone and in conversation is that at the moment we do not see any prospect of doing so. I am glad that, if the Government decide that some intervention can play a useful part, we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Faulds: Although foreigners are in danger because of the fighting in Lebanon, does my right hon. Friend not agree that so far there has been no molestation of British or foreign nationals? I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about the embassy staff in Beirut. British interests could not be better represented than they are.

Mr. Callaghan: Certainly there has been no molestation of British nationals, and I am not aware of any molestation of the nationals of any other country. As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, this is a tragic situation in which the country seems to be collapsing. I know that Mr. Karami, the Prime Minister, has hopes about the prospects of a cease-fire, and perhaps today or tomorrow will bring better news. We can only hope so for the sake of that very unhappy country.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during


November. The monthly forecast for November was deposited yesterday.
At present, five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for November. Foreign Ministers will meet on 5th and 6th; Agriculture Ministers on 10th and 11th; Finance Ministers on 17th; Fiscal Ministers on 24th November; and Budget Ministers on a date yet to be set. There will also be a tripartite conference, probably on 18th November, of Ministers of Employment and Economic Affairs, the Commission, and European employer and trade union organisations. In addition, there is to be a meeting of Education Ministers on 20th November.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will discuss the consumer/producer dialogue in preparation for the conference on international economic co-operation. They are also likely to discuss preparations for the European Council meeting scheduled for early December. They will consider the extension of the fishing zones around Iceland and possibly around Norway, and will resume their consideration of the overall Mediterranean approach in the context of negotiations with the Maghreb and of the mandate for negotiation with the Mashraq.
There will also be discussion of the Community's relations with Portugal and Canada, and of long-term contracts with Egypt, and consideration will be resumed on the 1976 scheme of generalised preferences. There is also likely to be discussion of the working group's report on direct elections to the European Assembly which was commissioned by Heads of Government at their last meeting in July.
Agriculture Ministers are expected to resume consideration of the restructuring of the Community wine régime and the arrangements for United Kingdom imports of New Zealand butter after 1977. There may also be a joint meeting of Foreign and Agriculture Ministers, on a date not yet set, but likely to be near the end of the month. That meeting will discuss aspects of the CAP stocktaking report.
Finance Ministers will consider the annual report on the economic situation in the Community following the convergence decision of 18th February 1974. They will also discuss possible Swiss membership of the "snake" and perhaps Euratom loans for nuclear power stations.

At the Fiscal Council, Ministers are expected to consider the draft sixth directive on value added tax, the Commission's action programme on taxation, and possibly the Commission's draft proposal on tax reliefs for small packages imported from third countries and the draft second directive on tobacco duty harmonisation.
Ministers at the Budget Council will consider the amendments and modifications proposed by the European Assembly to the draft Community budget for 1976.
The tripartite conference on 18th November stems from a decision taken at the meeting of the European Council in July following representations by the European Trade Union Confederation, and is expected to focus on the employment effects of the present economic crisis and the measures which are being or might be taken to deal with these effects.
The meeting of Education Ministers will consider a report from the Education Committee about educational co-operation in the European Community.

Mr. Maudling: That is a formidable programme of business. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions? First, in current circumstances ought there not to be provision for a meeting of Energy Ministers in the near future? It is not mentioned here. Secondly, when there is discussion of the working group's report on direct elections, what line will Her Majesty's Government take? Thirdly, would it not be a good idea for the Foreign Ministers to keep an eye on the working out of the Helsinki agreement?

Mr. Hattersley: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, he will agree on reflection, I think, that some of the more fundamental decisions about the conference to which he referred twice earlier today and to which I suspect he is referring again need to be taken in the meeting of Foreign Ministers. Then some of the more detailed applications of their decisions are appropriate for the Energy Minister's conference.
On the working out of the Helsinki Final Act, it is appropriate that there should be discussions in the political cooperation machinery of the EEC, and I am sure that that will happen. It is not the practice to report those meetings in the course of the business statement each month.
As for direct elections, I remind the right hon. Gentleman again that he would hardly expect the Government to comment on a report before they had seen it. Clearly, the Government are looking for a view which represents the will of this House and the best interests of Great Britain, and that view must come out at the appropriate time.

Mr. Dalyell: May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to two matters which are in no way the fault of Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that Guido Brunner, the Commissioner for Technology, came to the Budget Committee of the EEC Assembly and described as "black comedy" the way in which the fusion programme had been slashed so that we were paying those who worked on the programme but there was no money for the projects? Will my right hon. Friend also give attention to the way in which there has been a cut-back in the research into nuclear radiation, because Western Europe is ahead of both the Russians and the Americans? At a time when, rightly, we have a major nuclear power programme, it seems crazy that this research should be cut back. Could the general point be taken that it is no good in matters like this or in the social fund, which has to do with training, imagining that it is possible suddenly to turn on a tap and equally suddenly to choke it off? This is not the way in which these Community programmes should be run.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to comment on the two items which he draws to my attention, nor do I think that it would be in order. But I understand his general point about the discussions of the Budget Council and the difficulties of making adjustments to the Budget when one—or more than one—country believes that they are necessary. The complications and difficulties are confirmed in every Budget Council and, I think, will be confirmed again in November. Sooner or later, the Community will have to look hard, as will the Council of Ministers, at the budget procedures, so that this sort of difficulty does not constantly arise.

Mr. David Steel: Since the Ministers are to be discussing relations with

Portugal, will they be prepared if need be to discuss relations with Spain at the same time? On direct elections, while one would not expect the Government to commit themselves either on the timing or on the method of elections at the moment, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's view that they will work with their partners to see whether they can achieve agreement on a common system of elections? Surely elections to a body by different methods in different countries would be less than satisfactory. That seems a matter of principle.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that last month the Council of Foreign Ministers took a decision about commercial relations with Spain, and I do not think that it is appropriate to discuss that again next month. However, Spain is in a fluid situation. I can imagine circumstances in which it might be appropriate to discuss the situation in that country and I think that the Ministers in the EEC would do so. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is again tempting me, as I suppose I shall be constantly tempted for the rest of this year, to make advance judgments and comments on how elections to the European Parliament ought to be or might be held. He will understand why I shall continue to resist that temptation.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend has said that the Council of Foreign Ministers on 5th and 6th November will discuss arrangements for the European Council in December, which will presumably discuss the Tindemans Report. Will he request the Council of Foreign Ministers to permit that report to be printed by HMSO in English so that everyone in this country can have access to it? Second, the stocktaking document is to be discussed at the agricultural meeting on 10th and 11th. How will hon. Members know what line the Minister of Agriculture is taking? In our last debate on the stocktaking document, two hon. Members asked the Minister to request that the paper be referred back. How shall we know what his right hon. Friend will do at that meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: There is no doubt that at an appropriate time the Tindemans Report will have to be, and will of course be, translated into English and made


available to the House and the country. It is far too important a document not to give the House and the public every possible facility to discuss it. I think that the Minister of Agriculture made our views on stocktaking very clear. We laid down at the time of the renegotiation the basic principles which we hoped would characterise the new EEC agricultural policy—such as the end of constant surpluses, a policy based on the needs and desires of the more efficient agricultural units and a desire to balance production and demand in the Community itself. Those are our established policies and those are the policies that we shall pursue during the stocktaking.

Sir John Rodgers: On the Helsinki agreement and its follow up, do the Government agree with the line taken by President Giscard d'Estaing in his recent visit to Moscow, when he said that it is not sufficient to have peaceful coexistence and that we must insist—which the Soviets are resisting at the moment—on ideological co-existence as well?

Mr. Hattersley: I must insist on some things myself. One is that I do not answer such questions during questions about EEC business.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Fishing has been a Cinderella on the Council of Ministers' agenda, but we notice that it is on the agenda this time, albeit apparently only in relation to the extension of fishing zones around Iceland and possibly Norway. Has the Minister read the recent debate in the EEC Parliament, when all parties highlighted the disaster afflicting the fishing industry of this country? Will he bear in mind the promise of the Minister of Agriculture to this House in the early summer—that the EEC common fisheries policy was due for renegotiation? Would he take account of the disastrous state of that industry and notice how ironical it is that we discuss this matter only when a small independent country seeks to protect its fishing limits? Would he ensure that provision for a proper discussion of this industry and its plight is made on the agenda, although that did not seem to be in his statement?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that I do not detect in the hon. Lady's question about small independent countries protecting themselves the view that we should take

a less robust attitude in our negotiations with Iceland. But I put that question aside. I must insist to the House that on many occasions we have confirmed in the House that we are trying to make appropriate adjustments to the common fisheries policy before the derogation which affects Great Britain runs out. That continues to be our policy.

Mr. English: Does the Minister recollect that at the Dublin Summit his Government entered a reservation about the 1978 target date for direct elections and specifically linked that reservation to the subsequent referendum in Britain? Why is my right hon. Friend then so coy about saying what our attitude to direct elections now is? Did the Foreign Office not have a contingency plan against the possibility that the referendum would be won by the "Yes" side?

Mr. Hattersley: No one had a contingency plan for the immediate implementation of direct elections. Were such a plan to exist, the House would be rightly outraged about it. Direct elections are an important constitutional innovation, and the country, the House and the parties must be consulted. There is no way in which that can be done quickly.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that some of us are not convinced that the Foreign Secretary is right in what appears to be his assumption that the interests of the other eight members and ours over oil, and particularly oil pricing, are necessarily contradictory? Should not the Energy Ministers be pursuing this matter urgently in the coming weeks before the conference in December? Why is it being left to discussion only by the Foreign Ministers?

Mr. Hattersley: This is essentially a question for the Council of Foreign Ministers because, as my right hon. Friend said earlier today, the conference is concerned not with energy alone but with financial matters, aid to developing countries and a number of other matters which appropriately and properly come under the umbrella of the Council of Foreign Ministers. Of course I am aware that some hon. Members do not share my right hon. Friend's view, but others do and a vast majority of the British public will subscribe to his opinions.

Mr. Prescott: In view of my right hon. Friend's strong statement about fishing negotiations with Iceland and the coming discussions in the Community, does he feel that he may be getting into a contradictory position, whereby on the one hand we ask for the sharing of grounds around Iceland and then, in renegotiating the EEC fishing limits, we require in negotiations perhaps that they be kept solely for us? If we did that, would it not be hypocritical and unacceptable to the international community?

Mr. Hattersley: We should put this straight. We are not asking for the sharing of grounds around Iceland. We are asking for the ability to go on fishing where we have fished for a long time and where our international fishing rights are underwritten and supported by the International Court of Justice. If the day comes when there is a boundary, a limit, around all countries—including Iceland and the EEC—which makes a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, that will be a different situation and our rights, established by international law, in our zone or Iceland's zone will have to be determined differently. But that is not the situation at the moment. There is no inconsistency in our position.

Mr. John Davies: I am sure that both sides of the House will find satisfaction in hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that the Community should reconsider its budgetary processes, but would he assure us that, in the light of what he has said and, from time to time, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said—that the budget is nothing more than an aggregation of decisions made by other Ministers—decisions of such importance as have been referred to, in relation to the research, social and regional programmes of the Community, will not become the sole right of decision within the framework of Budget Ministers, who seem singularly inappropriate to deal with the particular problems concerned? Second, at what time will consideration

be resumed on the subject of an agreement of a new kind with Iran, which is of such basic interest to us all?

Mr. Hattersley: Progress on an agreement with Iran is not on the agenda for next month. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman whether it is likely to be discussed in the following month. On the first point, I very much share some of the criticisms and concerns that he has expressed. The situation which he described will be resolved only when both the budgetary procedures of the Community are improved and we have more co-ordination between the individual national Governments, who from time to time change their minds about how much money they want to spend.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a great deal to do today. We must get on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

EARLY-DAY MOTIONS

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, may I draw to your attention that there is an error in today's Order Paper. The names of 14 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been attached to Early-Day Motion No. 702, whereas they should have been attached to Early-Day Motion No. 699.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the correction will be made.

ARMED FORCES (PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS)

4.1 p.m.

Mr. John Loveridge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 so as to permit a member of the armed forces to sue the Crown in respect of certain accidents and to provide for adequate insurance in such cases.
The Bill that I seek leave to introduce is designed to stop and prevent a grave injustice, and I am grateful for the support of hon. Members of the three main parties. The injustice is that placed upon members of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy Reserves solely because they wish to train and serve their country in war or emergency. Section 10(2) of the 1947 Act effectively removes from them their right to sue the Crown for injury or death resulting from ordinary accidents while on service. If a civil servant suffered the same accident, he or she could sue the Crown.
The House will remember that at the end of last month 10 men from the engineering section of the 131st Independent Parachute Squadron were swept to their deaths during a river exercise in Nottinghamshire. If Section 10 of the Act was invoked, they would be denied any right to sue. This would not be the case had a civil servant, a civilian or a Member of this House been drowned in the same accident: the next of kin could sue.
Why is it that those who train to defend the rest of us cannot sue and have no right of appeal or remedy of any kind? There is a reason, which at first sight seems a reasonable one but which on second glance is not. The reason is given in a letter dated 14th December 1972 from the Secretary of State for Defence. He wrote:
Not only in operations, but also in training, Service men are called upon to risk injury and sometimes death, and it would make discipline impossible if a Service man could bring an action against another Service man, possibly his superior or subordinate in rank, or against the Crown, for alleged negligence during the course of military activities.
do not quarrel with that view. Discipline must be maintained. However, the Regular members of the forces receive recogni-

tion of their loss of rights under Section 10 of the 1947 Act. The booklet "War Pensions, MPL 48" and its supplements describe the benefits for regular Service men and their next of kin following death or injury. He or she signs on in this knowledge.
The situation for members of the reserve forces is not the same. When the Secretary of State wrote to me in 1972 he acknowledged that nothing was due as of right for a death from an accident. He further wrote of the period in 1947 when the original Bill was being considered that:
There was some anxiety about the position of Service men who were injured or the dependents of Service men who were killed on duty—in precisely those circumstances, in which case they could have had redress in civil life.
The then Attorney-General had already written to me on 29th August 1972 about comparisons of the workings of Section 10, He said:
I appreciate that these can operate harshly in particular cases especially where one is concerned with civilian-type accidents.
It is harsh indeed if a matter of death which might result in compensation of tens of thousands of pounds being awarded by a court could be prevented from ever going to court, however strong the grounds.
I am grateful that since then some improvement in compensation for death on duty has come about and that a small pension has been introduced for a widow.
If an unmarried reservist were killed in an ordinary motoring accident while on service, his next of kin would receive £254·67, which will be adjusted upwards in December. Is that enough in exchange for the loss of right by the next of kin to sue in the case of a motoring accident?
My Bill could not affect Service, discipline, because it will not enable one Service man to sue another; it will not affect members of the Regular forces, because they are covered by Service pension arrangements, and it will not even affect TAVR and other reservists in time of war. It will apply only in normal times to accidents, so that in the case of a reservist soldier in ordinary peace-time training the right will be maintained to sue under common law in the event of his injury or death, assuming always that a case can be made.


I turn to the auxiliary part of the Bill. I recognise that I should have to rely on the Government to legislate for any necessary funds. This part of the Bill asks for adequate life and other insurances to be taken out for members of the reserve forces against accidents while on duty. Time and again I have been told by the Government that it is not the practice of the Crown to insure. However, sometimes it is. Members of this House who go abroad on duty are covered by the State to the sum of £25,000 if they are killed, that sum going to their next of kin. The State now pays 75 per cent. of the premiums for RAF flying crews. Do not the TAVR and other reservists deserve insurance to cover their short periods of training? I believe that they do. The cost of the premiums should not be large. The number killed in the five years 1969 to 1973 inclusive totalled only 27 persons, although the injured would number more. As with Members of this House, the State should provide insurance against accidents for these cases.
This matter was first brought to my attention by the parents of a constituent, 19-year-old Malcolm Cousins who was killed in a motor accident in 1971 while training as a cadet with the officer training corps. He was an undergraduate at Cambridge University. We need fine young men such as he was to volunteer for the reserve forces. It would be a memorial to his life's sacrifice if we could give better hopes for those who volunteer in the future so that they can know that if they die in an accident as a result of their service the right to sue the Crown will not be arbitrarily removed from their next of kin and, secondly, that they are insured against accident while training.
I hope that the House will allow me to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Col. Sir Harwood Harrison, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. David Lane, Mr. John Stokes, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Alan Lee Williams, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Cyril Smith.

ARMED FORCES (PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS)

Mr. John Loveridge accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 so as to permit a member of the armed forces to sue the Crown in respect of certain accidents and to provide for adequate insurance in such cases: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. (Bill 244.)

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish machinery for promoting the improvement of industrial relations and to amend the law relating to workers' rights and otherwise to amend the law relating to workers, employers, trade unions and employers' associations, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by Mr. Speaker or by any person designated by him under any provision of the new Act extending employment legislation to staff of this House;
(2) the payment of sums into or out of the National Loans Fund in consequence of any provision of the new Act whereby the Treasury is authorised to make advances, subject to a limit of £10 million in the aggregate outstanding by way of principal, to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Maternity Pay Fund;
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund out of the Maternity Pay Fund of sums equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising his functions under the provisions of the new Act in relation to maternity pay.—[Mr. Booth.]

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

ADVISORY, CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out from "provisions" to "III" and insert:
(so far as applicable) of Parts I and".

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment restricts the effect of Part I of Schedule 1 on the Service to those provisions that are applicable. I therefore commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

CONCILIATION

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) The Service shall designate officers of the Service to perform the functions of conciliation officers under any enactment (including any provision of this Act or any Act passed after this Act) in respect of matters which are or could be the subject of proceedings before an industrial tribunal, and accordingly any reference in any such enactment to a conciliation officer is a reference to an officer designated under this subsection.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 231.

Mr. Booth: The effect of Lords Amendment No. 2 is to redraft subsection (4) to specify that ACAS is to designate officers of the Service to act as conciliation officers. Lords Amendment No. 231 is a consequential amendment as a result of Clause 2(4). I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

ADVICE

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 38, after "recruitment," insert "retention,".

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was moved by the Conservative Opposition and accepted by the Government in another place. It adds retention to the number of matters on which the Service can give advice. It is a useful addition to the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

CODES OF PRACTICE

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 42, at end insert:
(4A) In the case of a draft Code of Practice containing practical guidance on the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or (6) of subsection (2) above, if the draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament the Service shall issue the Code in the form of the draft and the Code shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Booth: The effect of Lords Amendment No. 4 is to provide for a code of practice containing practical guidance on disclosure or time off to be issued by the Service and to come into effect on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State only if the draft has been approved by resolution of each House.
In Committee hon. Members pressed me to consider whether it was appropriate that these two codes in particular should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said. I have accepted that in the case of both these codes there are important rights in the Bill dependent upon them, a collective right in one case and an individual right in the other. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.


Lords Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential on the other amendment, and therefore I hope that these, too, will also be accepted.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have made these amendments in another place in response to points that we made in Committee. What this means now is that we have the affirmative procedure operating for the two most important codes of practice which the ACAS will be producing. These are the provisions about disclosure and about time off with pay for trade union officials, that is, time off as a right for trade union members to go about specific trade union activities.
As the Minister said, these are very important. I should like an assurance from him. These codes of practice cannot become effective, obviously, until they have been through the affirmative procedure and the Secretary of State has appointed a day. The relevant clauses of the Bill, Clauses 17, 18, 49 and 50, and the rights so conferred by those clauses, presumably cannot come into effect until the codes of practice have been agreed. It would be useful if the Minister of State were to confirm what I think were the assurances he gave in a slightly different context in Committee about that.
Will the Minister also confirm—it may well be that this is the normal practice of the House—that where the affirmative procedure applies the appointed day cannot be made earlier than the last day on which one or other of the Houses gives its affirmation? In other words, the affirmative procedure having been gone through, one would like an assurance that the Secretary of State cannot then make a retrospective operation of the appointed day on which these codes of practice come into effect. Obviously, one has no need to argue the difficulties that might ensue.

Mr. Booth: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may deal with the last point first.
When one lays a code of practice before the House to come into effect subject to the affirmative procedure, that code cannot have effect before the day on which the latter of the two Houses deals with it.
On the former point, we shall not have a commencement date for the clauses

which are affected by these two codes before the appropriate code is in effect. Obviously we should like them to be in effect as quickly as possible, but we take the point that they are important codes and, therefore, should not come into effect until the two Houses have approved them.

Question put and agreed to

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to

Clause 7

CERTIFICATION OFFICER

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 6, line 10, after "I" insert "and paragraph 28".

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 152.

Mr. Booth: The first amendment is a Government drafting amendment for clarification. The second is consequential on the Lords amendment to Schedule 1, paragraph 28.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 8, line 33, leave out
(formerly known as the Industrial Court)" and insert "(whether by that or any other name)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 212, 215 and 220.

Mr. Booth: Lords Amendment No. 8 is to redraft a description in part of the Bill and merely clarifies the reference to the Industrial Arbitration Board. Lords Amendment No. 212 concerns a series of consequential changes which flow from that. Lords Amendment No. 220 is a technical amendment to take account of the change of name of the Industrial Court to Industrial Arbitration Board, formalised in the Sex Discrimination Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

REFERENCE OF RECOGNITION ISSUE TO SERVICE

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 8, line 41, after "union" insert "or an employer".

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 13.

Mr. Booth: The effect of these amendments would be to enable an employer to refer a recognition issue to the ACAS under Clause 11, and this would have the effect of requiring the Service to examine the issue under Clause 12 and to publish a written report. The provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 are intended to provide a trade union with a right of appeal against a refusal by an employer to recognise that union. Trade unions and employers are, in our view, not in the same position on recognition issues. It will always be the case that an employer can agree to recognise a union on an application to him, and therefore he can never be in the same position as the union where he is discussing with it terms of recognition.
I believe that employers' need of ACAS on recognition issues is very limited, and it applies only in relatively rare circumstances. The amendment does not face up to this.
The House may be interested to learn of the number of requests which have come forward to ACAS in its first year of operation on conciliation in recognition cases, and the sources from which they came. In its first year of operation ACAS received 411 requests from trade unions for conciliation in recognition cases, 43 from employers, and 39 jointly. Thus, unions were involved in applications covering 91 per cent. of all requests for conciliation, whereas employers were involved in only 17 per cent.
Those facts tend to show that ACAS has been able to take on board requests for conciliation—in fact, in three cases it has even initiated conciliation activities in recognition cases—and there has been no reluctance on the part of those involved

to come forward to ACAS in this way. I hope, therefore, that the House will be encouraged to believe that the great majority of recognition problems may well be solved under the conciliation provisions of the Bill.
However, where employers require the services of ACAS on recognition matters it must be recognised that they will stand in a position different from that of trade unions. Employers may require the services of ACAS where there is disagreement as to which union should be recognised, or the purpose for which it should be recognised. In rare cases there may be fear of a dispute, or there may on an employer's part be a lack of knowledge as to the degree of support enjoyed by a union which claims recognition rights, especially in a case where a union is claiming sole recognition rights.
Cases of this sort, which are peculiar to employers, may raise very complex issues, and the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 are not ideally suited for that purpose. We accept that an employer has a right to refer—indeed, we welcome the fact that employers are already referring these issues to ACAS as it exists at present on an administrative basis—but where a dispute either exists on recognition or is apprehended by an employer, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 2 for this purpose. Second, if an employer is seeking advice on questions of recognition, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 4; and third, where he wants ACAS to inquire into and report upon a recognition issue, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 5.
Although recognition disputes are rare, and lack of collective bargaining machinery in attempts to obtain recognition presents serious issues, it should be appreciated that where employers' recognition problems exist they can be complex and are best helped by ACAS if handled carefully and with the maximum flexibility. If ACAS is permitted to do this under the wide range of powers at present in the Bill as we wish it to be, that will best serve the cause of industrial relations, and, whatever disagreements there may be on this issue, I hope that we are at one in acknowledging that, if recognition matters can be solved on a conciliation basis, that will be more likely to achieve a good industrial relations result.

Mr. Hayhoe: I urge the House to accept the Lords amendment. The Minister's argument—if one can give it the credit of that description, since it was, at best, tissue-thin—made no case for rejecting the Lords amendment. The truth is that the Government's stand here is wholly wrong. They are being blatantly partisan in seeking to eliminate from the Bill an amendment which would give equality of access to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for both unions and employers on recognition issues. They seek to deny that equality of access, saying that employers shall not be permitted to use Clause 11 as a means of referring recognition issues to ACAS.
In many ways this is a key amendment. Although the change of wording is small, the principle behind it is substantial. Throughout our consideration of this matter in Committee and on Report—when the Government gave as broad a hint as one could have that they were looking sympathetically at the possibility of finding a way which would be convenient to them to meet our case—and throughout the debates in another place, the Government's attitude seemed to show an unwillingness to act in furtherance of any view which is not accepted by the trade unions.
As many of us have said from the outset, this is not an Employment Protection Bill but a trade union benefit Bill, and presumably this is part of the legislative Danegeld which the Secretary of State and the Labour Government have to pay to the barons of the TUC for their support in other ways.
No argument has been adduced to show why equality of access should be denied to employers. So far as one can judge, not content with all the various benefits and advantages which the leaders of the TUC have demanded and obtained from the Government it is the leadership rather than the membership of the TUC who are here concerned, I believe—those leaders are now apparently not prepared to permit employers the same access to this new independent and important service as they have for themselves.
Why not? What are they afraid of? What are they seeking to defend by resisting the proposal that employers should have equality of access? The Minister of State has given no indication of that.

Indeed, parts of his speech could well have been used in support of the Lords Amendment, for he called in aid the number of applications so far made to ACAS: 83 per cent. from trade unions, 9 per cent. from employers and some 8 per cent. made jointly, so that 91 per cent of applications had a union attachment to them and 17 per cent. had an employer attachment to them.
The Minister argues that approximately 10 per cent. of referrals, a substantial proportion, should now not take place under Clause 11. It is 17 per cent. if one takes the joint figure, but if the Lords amendment is eliminated 8 per cent. out of that 17 per cent. could be made because they would be made not jointly but only by the union. Thus, on the Minister's figures 9 per cent. of applications could not be made under Clause 11 in the way we think they should be.
It is not altogether surprising that the Minister has given no argument in support of rejecting the Lords amendment, because I cannot believe that there is any such argument which would commend itself to the House. On the other hand, we have heard what I can only call a rather sly and semi-sympathetic story about how employers can involve ACAS in matters of this kind in other ways. Having barred the front door of ACAS to employers, presumably on orders from the TUC, Ministers now give advice about how employers may break in at the back door or climb in through a window. What a degrading spectacle!
On Report, on 30th July—this is col. 1968 of Hansard—the Minister accepted that that back-door or side-window approach was not wholly satisfactory. At that stage he seemed anxious to help, or so one thought, saying that he was prepared to consult the TUC to seek an accommodation between TUC voluntary procedures and any new statutory procedure. The negotiations do not seem to have been very satisfactory, however, and no accommodation has been reached.
4.30 p.m.
I should like to say a little about the TUC voluntary procedures which are known as the Bridlington and Croydon procedures. Over the years they have been used in a variety of cases. Since we debated this matter on Report, we have had the benefit of advice from Lord


George-Brown in another place about how Bridlington operates. I understand that I cannot directly quote his words, and I should not wish to do so, but perhaps I may summarise the argument which he put forward. In effect, he said that decisions on the Bridlington and Croydon procedures are not made on the basis of what the union members want or to take account of the options and desires of the individuals concerned. However, they are made on a horse-trading basis between the big unions—not necessarily between the unions which are involved in the specific dispute—and are a mutual back-scratching exercise between trade union leaders.
We have also had the evidence of an action before the High Court. The Bridlington decision was the cause of an action between Rothwell and the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff and the TUC. This was the APEX—ASTMS—TUC "saga". SAGA is not a description of what went on but denotes the staff association of the General Accident Insurance Group.
There was a carve-up between the members of the TUC as to which was the appropriate union for members of that staff association to join, without any real consideration being given to the views of the staff association. APEX loyally undertook to follow the obligation which it felt it had assumed by membership of the TUC and by one of its own rules to give effect to the decisions of the TUC machinery concerning recognition. However, the matter ended up in the High Court, and the arrangement which had been laid down by the TUC was rejected by the court. The matter has now gone back to all concerned to be considered again.
I have referred to the evidence of Lord George-Brown, who is certainly someone who knows his way around the trade union world, but there is plenty of other evidence. Will Paynter, a distinguished trade unionst who joined the CIR during the last Government, wrote an article about the inter-union dispute machinery of the TUC in the Political Quarterly just after the 1970 election. He made it clear that what mattered was not so much the merits of the case as what the big battalions of the TUC wanted to happen. Therefore, we do not accept that the Bridlington procedures are entirely satisfactory. However, I should not wish to be

as rude about them as was Lord George-Brown.
I accept that these procedures have helped in the past and that they certainly can help, but I do not believe that they are so perfect that it would be proper for the House to deny employers equality of access by the front door to ACAS on recognition issues.
The Government, by seeking to deny such access, are being somewhat untrue and inconsistent to themselves. If they look at one of their own draft Statutory Instruments—the Draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1975—they will find Article 7, which is headed "Recognition of trade unions". Northern Ireland does not have an Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to consider these matters, but it does have a Labour Relations Agency. In the terms of the draft Statutory Instrument which has been issued for consultation, there is equality of access by "an independent trade union"—that is the same as in Britain—
or an employer who is a party to the dispute.
Therefore, what is proposed for employers in the somewhat different circumstances of Northern Ireland is what we want for employers in this country.
The amendment is a talisman of how the Government are approaching the whole question of the involvement of ACAS in industrial disputes. If, with all the strength of their conviction, they seriously wanted to ensure that ACAS had an independent rôle and independent procedures associated with it, they would not seek to dismiss and eliminate the Lords amendment. The Government ask us to reject what I believe is a reasonable and sensible point of view which has been added to the Bill in another place. In seeking to deny equality of access to employers the Government are wrong, unfair, deeply biased and inconsistent. However, perhaps it is not all that surprising because one can find many other issues in which similar descriptions could be attached to their point of view.
I hope that the House will be right, fair and consistent and remove the bias which the elimination of the Lords amendment would leave on the statute book.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). I, too, believe that the amendment goes some way towards redressing the imbalance in the Bill. The Minister of State has rightly said that the number of inter-union disputes is not great. However, for an employer even one dispute can be too many. They can be expensive in time and money. I believe that the employer should have proper recourse to the ACAS. I should have thought that the Department would have reached the view that the case put forward by the Lords was reasonable and could be accepted.
In the debate in another place the Government spokesman, Lord Jacques, put forward three reasons for resisting the amendment. The first was referred to by the Minister of State when he said that the employer can, of course, refer under Clauses 2, 4 or 5. The wording of the Bill is that the Service shall take such action "as it thinks fit". This language contrasts strongly with "The Service shall do this and that" when trade union interests are the subject of the provisions.
If it is the Government's intention that employers should have recourse to the services of the ACAS in an inter-union dispute which threatens their interests, surely the Government could find a way of spelling out clearly and unconditionally how that should be done.
The second reason advanced by Lord Jacques was that machinery already existed under the Bridlington and Croydon procedures. But Lord Jacques and the Minister said nothing about what happens if the unions do not care to use those procedures. The unions usually care not to use those procedures for one of two reasons: either that the case is bad or that they think they can get their way by strength of numbers or force.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to an example of a situation which an employer might wish to refer. The case in question involved 30 maintenance assistants who in 1972 notified their resignation from the TGWU although this was not originally accepted. Eventually, having taken legal advice, they joined the Association of Metalworkers, a registered trade union.

In September 1974 the TGWU demanded that the work of maintenance assistants should be carried out only by its members and indicated that process operators would refuse to operate any plant which had been worked by a non-TGWU maintenance assistant. It proved impossible to persuade the unions to settle the issue through trade union channels. The company was unwilling to discharge the men and the TGWU was unwilling to allow them to work. As an interim measure they were placed on a protracted training course and the company requested the assistance of ACAS, which had just been set up. The TGWU was not initially willing to deal with ACAS, but its assistance proved most useful and eventually the maintenance assistants were persuaded to rejoin the TGWU, which agreed to open a separate section of its branch to receive them.
Nobody will deny that the employer had a legitimate interest. Nobody will deny that he lost out through the delay. Nobody will deny that the Service did what it was there to do. Therefore, I ask the Minister: why not give the employer the right to call in the Service?
The third reason given by Lord Jacques was that the employer was in difficulty only when one of the parties was not affiliated or when the TUC had failed to produce a settlement. Lord Jacques called it a situation
of the greatest difficulty and delicacy."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 22nd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 84.]
In effect, the Government seem to be saying, "This is difficult and delicate. Do not interfere, regardless of the injustice which is being done."
Employers are not fools. They know when a situation should be left alone. But difficult and delicate problems do not go away. They have to be resolved. Surely it is the function of the Service to see that they are resolved.
I should like to give another example to the Minister. I quote:
The dispute is one between ASTMS and our in-company Management Association. This latter was set up by the managers themselves and is really an in-company union with which we actually negotiate.
The problem arose because ASTMS had members among our junior staff on the site. Since clearly the clerical staff wished to be


represented by ASTMS, we willingly signed a full negotiating procedural agreement with them. There were other junior staff not in this clerical group who had joined ASTMS and we wanted to give them the same rights either as a separate group or as part of the clerical group. ASTMS have repeatedly refused to take up this offer because they have a few members in our senior staff group and they clearly wished to out-vote the senior staff by their membership among the larger junior staff group.
We claim our senior staff are a national company-wide common interest group whereas ASTMS see part or all of the senior staff as a purely local resource.
We have repeatedly said that we have no objection to giving negotiating rights to ASTMS for our senior staff if this is the majority wish of the national common interest group, but…our senior staff are currently strongly in favour of maintaining their independence.
Hon. Members who studied the Industrial Democracy Bill sponsored in this Session by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) will recall that one of its provisions was that a two-tier board should be established at the request of an independent trade union recognised for bargaining purposes. It is not impossible that the Government will introduce legislation on those lines in future.
Given the disagreement within the trade union movement at present over membership of such boards, it is to be feared that disputes over recognition may increase and that the need for the employers to invite the help of the Service will also increase.
The example which I have cited touches on one issue—management representation—which has been much exercising the European Parliament. The debate on the structure of two-tier boards is clearly one of which we shall hear more.
My purpose in raising the matter here is to express my fear that it may provide a fruitful field for inter-union disputes in future and to argue that, if that should be the case, it is further evidence of the need for the Lords amendment.
4.45 p.m.
In conclusion, the Government's case seems to be that the amendment is not needed because the employer may refer disputes under Clauses 2, 4 and 5, yet there is no obligation on the Service to take action. The Government argue that because Bridlington exists there is no need to take action. Yet there is no obli-

gation on the union to use it. Because disputes involving non-affiliated unions are too sensitive for Parliament or employers to intervene, and no action should be taken, the employer is left naked. That may be the trade unions' intention, but it is no basis for legislation which seeks to stand the test of time on the rock of natural justice.

Mr. John Page: I support the Lords amendment. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will wish to remove from the legislation and their attitude to it any suggestion that they might appear to be biased too much in favour of the trade unions or of the employers. This amendment would give them the opportunity of showing their absolute neutrality towards both employers and unions over recognition. Surely that is what the inhabitants of St. James's Square would wish to show. It is important that in industrial relations there should be absolute fairness. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not wish to alter the Bill as it has been amended by the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who was most persuasive, spoke about an inter-union dispute over recognition with a particular company. I should like to take the matter a little earlier—to the stage when there is inter-union disagreement.
I suggest that the Bill should try to make ACAS more of what might be termed a fire prevention organisation to ensure that the conflagration does not happen than a fire brigade to be called in after the fire has started. It seems fair that an employer should have the opportunity of taking to ACAS a disagreement between unions about recognition before it leads to a dispute.
Subsection (2) of the clause is particularly relevant here because it refers to
recognition of the union by an employer, or two or more associated employers".
Again, we could have a situation where different employers in the same industry, and possibly in the same industrial federation or confederation, might recognise that different unions should cover the same kind of employees. Therefore, it must be fair for employers to be given the opportunity of making an appeal to ACAS.


It is altogether too tortuous to say that a recognition dispute by a union refers to recognition by the union of an employer and that if the word "employer" were included it would mean that the employer was trying to get recognition by the union. That argument has been put forward, but it does not bear too much examination.
I hope that, in a fair and ecumenical frame of mind, the Minister will accept the rejection of the Government's motion as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that I had not made the case for not having complete equality of access under Clauses 11 and 12, but I rested my whole case on the proposition that employers and unions were not equal in this matter, could not be equal, and that nothing we did through the law would ever make them equal. It is like trying to make men and women equal in a particular sense.

Mr. Hayhoe: We cannot make men and women equal by law, but we have legislated to try to give them equality of access in certain respects. That is all we are seeking now.

Mr. Booth: Perhaps we are quarrelling about the definition of equality of access, but we do not try to give men and women equality of access to the same lavatories. We face the fact that different people have different needs.
Employers' and unions' needs, in the context of these clauses, must be essentially different. If we wanted to achieve absolute neutrality by legislation, we would have to take away from employers the right to decide whether they wished to recognise trades unions. We would have to make this the job of another body, but that is not the proposition of those who support the amendment. Their proposition is that an employer should be left to say "Yes" or "No" and that if he seeks to exercise another course he should be able to do so. That is not creating absolute neutrality—far from it.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to the number of employers who had made requests for conciliation in recognition cases and claimed

they would not have been able to do so if the Bill had been enacted. He shows his complete failure to understand what the Bill proposes. Employers would have been able to act in this way anyway. The Bill will provide for other courses to be open to them. I resent the description of the access provided in Clauses 2, 4 and 5 as a back-door method. These are the cases where absolute parity is possible. If we had given absolute parity under Clauses 11 and 12, Opposition Members would not have described that as a back-door method. We are recognising the different functions carried out by trade unions and employers.
If hon. Members opposite wanted to apply the case for absolute neutrality against the test of the Industrial Democracy Bill, as one of them suggested, they would have to argue for an equal number of places for workers and shareholders on boards. They do not argue that, because they recognise that we are arguing about different functions in this matter.
Reference was also made to Lord George-Brown's remarks in another place. Whatever qualifications Lord George-Brown may possess, he never served on the Bridlington committee. He was a full-time Member of this House before the Croydon conference took place. It is no part of my case that the construction of Clauses 11 and 12 and what flows from them depend on the perfection of the Bridlington machinery. That would be ridiculous. Bridlington cannot deal with cases where two unions—one a TUC union—both claim recognition by an employer in exactly the same area. It is advisable that we have access, through more flexible provisions, by employers, so that when they wish to raise this matter ACAS is in a position to form a judgment whether it is better for certain cases to be dealt with under the Bridlington machinery because they will be more likely to be resolved by that method than by ACAS taking them on board. This is an area where judgment should be held to rest not in this House but with ACAS.
Clauses 11 and 12 are bound to lead to a means by which unions can ultimately determine terms and conditions against a recalcitrant employer. It cannot work the other way round and achieve a position in which an employer, having got a decision from ACAS, can


force a union into the courts to determine terms and conditions on behalf of its members. That demonstrates the nonsense of the whole idea of equality of access and absolute neutrality in this matter. I very much hope that Clauses 11 and 12 will be needed only in a minority of cases, that most employers will meet reasonable requests for recognition, and that when there are disputes they will be settled by the conciliation provisions. However, when a trade union has to proceed in the face of a recalcitrant employer, there must be machinery which can finally determine terms and conditions.
The amendment is totally unsuitable in a part of the Bill concerned with those rare and unfortunate cases in which unions have to deal with recalcitrant employers. If we need to have a determination obtained through the statute book, we need a means of enforcing the terms and conditions decision.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The Minister of State started unsteadily and concluded unhappily. He started unsteadily with a most unfortunate argument, when dealing with the suggestion that employers and unions were being treated in a different way and that this was objectionable. He argued against that by saying that employers and trades unions could not be regarded as equal, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) pointed out that it was a question not of being born equal but of being treated equally under the law, as happens with men and women, the Minister of State compared ACAS to a lavatory. That seemed a somewhat disrespectful and unfortunate way to refer to an organisation which I thought we were all concerned to support to the fullest possible extent.
The analogy of unfair treatment is an appropriate one with Clause 11 as it stands unamended. The Minister said that the analogy would be fair only if one said that employers were being treated in a different way if they were not the ultimate arbiters in recognition matters. Under the machinery provided in the Bill the employer will not be the ultimate arbiter. Under the Clause 11 procedure, if employers do not obey the requirements of ACAS, it will be possible for the matter to be taken to the Central Arbitration Committee and for that com-

mittee, in effect, to treat the union as though it were a recognised union by considering, on its merits, the claim put forward by the union. The Minister of State therefore seeks to make an unreal distinction and creates genuine unequal treatment of employers and unions.
5.0 p.m.
The Minister of State complained, in an air of injured innocence, that it was monstrous for us to say that the action open to the employer under Clauses 2 and 4 amounted to a back-door method. It is a back-door method. The Minister says that Clause 11, appearing as it does under the heading "Trade union recognition", would seem the most appropriate one to deal with questions of trade union recognition, but not the most appropriate for employers. Instead, therefore, of going boldly and openly through the front door marked "Trade union recognition", employers are sent to the back door marked "Conciliation and Advice". It is no use the Minister getting upset at the implication of the phrase "back-door method" when that is precisely what he is compelling the employers to resort to.
Why is he so afraid of allowing the employers to resort to Clause 11? The answer to that was squeezed out of the orange at the end of his speech, when he said that he thought that ACAS should have the right to decide not to consider the matter. That is what we regard as objectionable. We have now had clarification of what previously had only been implied, which is that the Minister hopes that the back-door method will prevent employers getting what they want. In other words, if the amendments were accepted the back-door could be kept firmly bolted and the employer would have the key to the front door, and that is what the Minister objects to. That is why we so strongly favour the Lords amendments.
We think that the employer should, as of right, be able to require the Service to look into these matters. Clauses 2 and 4 are extremely vague about what the Service can and should do in the event that it takes the matter aboard. All that needs to be done is, by conciliation or by other means, for advice to be given. Under Clause 11 there is a requirement for a report and the opportunity for a ballot among the people involved. Crucial importance must be attached to the ballot,


and it is doubtful whether the conciliation provisions would enable the Service to hold a ballot. For that reason alone, employers would not be satisfied unless they could go in at the front door. It is quite possible for ACAS, if it thinks the matter is being dealt with adequately under the Bridlington arrangements, to say so. There is ample provision for the inquiry and report in Clauses 11 and 12 in that respect.
Now that we have smoked the Minister out and secured his real reasons we can see that, in so far as they are comprehensible, they are wholly bad. They genuinely discriminate against the employer, not in the sense that every employer is a different animal from the union but in the sense that they are treating employers unfairly and giving them lesser rights than the unions.
Mr. Eric Wigham, of The Times, is not to be regarded as the employers' best

friend, but let me quote what he said in his article on 7th October this year entitled:
The case for accepting amendments to the Employment Protection Bill

The article reads:
Recognition disputes between unions, which are increasingly troublesome in the white-collar field, can be extremely damaging to employers. These can, of course, ask for help from the ACAS conciliation officers under another section of the Bill, but that hardly justifies excluding them from the procedure designed specifically for recognition issues.

That is our case. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments from the other place.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 222.

Division No. 372.]
AYES
[5.06 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Cronin, John
Grocott, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Harper, Joseph


Ashley, Jack
Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Daiyell, Tam
Hatton, Frank


Bain, Mrs. Margaret
Davidson, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs. Helene


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bates, Alf
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Henderson, Douglas


Bean, R. E.
Deakins, Eric
Hooley, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, Hugh
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boardman, H.
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edge, Geoff
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ennals, David
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Buchanan, Richard
Evens, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carter, Ray
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Judd, Frank


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kaufman, Gerald


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kelley, Richard


Clemitson, Ivor
Ford, Ben
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
George, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Corbett, Robin
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gould, Bryan
Lipton, Marcus


Crawford, Douglas
Gourlay, Harry
Litterick, Tom




Loyden, Eddie
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Luard, Evan
Palmer, Arthur
Thompson, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parker, John
Tierney, Sydney


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


MacCormick, Iain
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomney, Frank


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackenzie, Gregor
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Reid, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McNamara, Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rooker, J. W.
Ward, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Rose, Paul B.
Watkinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Welsh, Andrew


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
White, James (Pollok)


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Millan, Bruce
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Small, William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Molloy, William
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Moonman, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newens, Stanley
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Woodall, Alec


Noble, Mike
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. David Stoddart and


Ovenden, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Owen, Dr David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Sir John


Alison, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hannam, John


Awdry, Daniel
Durant, Tony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Banks, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Sir Michael


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, Sir William
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Emery, peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Fairgrieve, Russell
Higgins, Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hurd, Douglas


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brotherton, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
James, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nick
Freud, Clement
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kershaw, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Kilfedder, James


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Churchill, W. S.
Goodlad, Alastair
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cockcroft, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Knox, David


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lamont, Norman


Cope, John
Gray, Hamish
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cordle, John H.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Cormack, Patrick
Grist, Ian
Lawrence, Ivan




Lawson, Nigel
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Ian
Pardoe, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Loveridge, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Penhaligon, David
Stainton, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCusker, H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Macfarlane, Neil
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


MacGregor, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tapsell, Peter


Mates, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mather, Carol
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Tebbit, Norman


Maude, Angus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mayhew, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Viggers, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sainsbury, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Morgan, Geraint
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shepherd, Colin
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mudd, David
Shersby, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Fred



Nelson, Anthony
Sims, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neubert, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Newton, Tony
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Nott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 17

GENERAL DUTY OF EMPLOYERS TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION

Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 15, line 24, at end insert:
(6) Where an employer, being a company in the case of which there has, as respects the whole or any proportion of its share capital, been granted a quotation on a recognised stock exchange, is required by virtue of this section to disclose any information to trade union representatives relating to future plans of the company which could have a significant effect on the assets or profits of the company, he shall at the same time make the information available in accordance with the disclosure requirements for the time being of that stock exchange.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In disagreeing with the amendment the Government have no intention of restrict-

ing the information which can be given to shareholders or of forcing companies to give information to unions which they cannot give to shareholders or the Stock Exchange. Our objections are purely practical. We appreciate that there is real concern behind this amendment, but we feel it is misdirected.
Many companies already disclose information to trade union representatives without seeing any problem here. They accept that unions will handle the information responsibly. Although they will now be required by law to disclose some information to unions, that information will be concerned with collective bargaining, and its disclosure will not usually have any significant effect on the assets or profits of the company. Employers are not required to release information if its disclosure would have an adverse effect on the undertaking. In the very rare case where price-sensitive information is divulged—for example, when disclosure sends the share price up—there is nothing in the Bill to stop the employer telling the shareholders, the Stock Exchange, or anyone else. Nothing prevents a company from giving any information to shareholders or the Stock Exchange which it thinks the Stock Exchange rules require


It is a matter for the Stock Exchange to see that its rules cover what it requires, and to enforce them if necessary. This is certainly not the purpose of legislation on the rights of trade union representatives. It does not, therefore, follow that since a legal obligation has been placed on companies to give information to unions the obligation to shareholders should also be given legal force. The existence of Stock Exchange rules to cover this obligation should be a sufficient safeguard for those who invest money. The purpose of this legislation is to provide an equivalent safeguard for those who invest their labour. If changes in the law concerning the rights of shareholders were required the place for them would be in a companies Bill.
There is a defect in the amendment in that it provides no sanction against any employer who breaks the Stock Exchange rules on disclosure. Presumably the Stock Exchange could take action against such an employer, but it could do this anyway without the benefit of this amendment.
Many of the disclosure provisions in the Bill are not substantially different the disclosure provisions in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The clauses on disclosure of information in this Bill were welcomed by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when, on Second Reading, he said:
I now turn to the information clauses, to which we have no objection. They are the same clauses, with perhaps a little elaboration, as were contained in the Industrial Relations Act."—[Official Report, 28th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 54.]
On the bases of precedent and practicability and bearing in mind that stock exchanges have the right to require the disclosure of information if they think it relevant to shareholders, I hope that the House will agree to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Brittan: I regret to say that I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to disagree with the Lords. This is a matter to which we attach some importance. We are not alone in that. These matters were raised elsewhere when there was a considerable degree of discussion both formally and informally relating to the points raised. It was the considered view of the Stock Exchange that an amendment of this kind was desirable. This is not a sudden side-wind but a pro-

fessional view which is held responsibly and is advanced by the Lords in their amendment for that reason.
I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by comparing this situation with that of the Industrial Relations Act, or quoting general observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Those were general observations, and even if what he was saying was taken in a wider sense than he undoubtedly must have meant, the fact is that if representations have been made by a responsible body this House ought to take them into account and consider them on their merits. For this reason we must look at the merits of what the Lords have done rather than consider what was said at the time of the Industrial Relations Act and the relationship between this legislation and that Act.
The first point to stress is that this amendment in no way seeks to limit disclosure to trade unions, which is the major objective in this portion of the legislation. It is equally important to stress that the amendment in no way seeks to protect companies that might not wish to disclose. Quite the reverse is the case.
The amendment is directed at bad companies which might be compelled to disclose price-sensitive information to trade unions under these disclosure provisions but which might be reluctant to disclose such information any further—not necessarily because it would harm the companies but for other reasons. A situation would arise in which trade unions would have price-sensitive information which would not be otherwise available.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about which we shall, no doubt, hear more. Can he give the House an estimate of the number of trade unionists who benefited from the release of price-sensitive information concerning Slater Walker last Friday afternoon?

Mr. Brittan: That is an interesting and instructive comment. As the hon. Member knows, the answer has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. No information was disclosed to trade unions and it does not seem that a great deal of service is done to the House by using a debate on a serious amendment to make that sort of cheap point. Such


highly partisan points have been delivered by the hon. Gentleman with a greater degree of wit in the past. We look forward to his reverting to his better form.
The situation envisaged here is one whereby unions are given price-sensitive information, and when a difficult position arises over the listing agreement entered into by companies whose shares are quoted on the stock exchanges concerned. Such an agreement says that a company, having secured a listing on the Stock Exchange, is required to give immediate notification of any information necessary to enable shareholders to appraise the position of the company. It goes on to say that directors should not divulge price-sensitive information in such a way as to place in a privileged position any person, or class or category of person, outside the company and its advisers.
If the Bill is passed without this amendment the effect would be that trade unions would be placed in such a privileged position. We believe that that is undesirable. There is no reason why the amendment should not stand and ensure that there is that legal obligation on companies placed in that position to make the disclosure in the way the Stock Exchange provides.
The Minister says that it is not often that price-sensitive information is disclosed. That is right, but the CIR Report No. 31 says that the sort of information that is disclosed to trade unions, or ought to be so disclosed, can be price-sensitive. That report talked about information as to profits before and after tax, distributions and retentions and up-to-date values of fixed assets and stocks. It would be extraordinary if it were suggested that such information would be incapable of being price-sensitive. Of course it is. As such it is only right that there should be an obligation for it to be disclosed generally, as the Stock Exchange requires, rather than disclosed only to trade unions.
The Minister made two further points. He said that there was no sanction imposed on the employer if he failed to disclose the information. That is correct. The machinery does not provide for a sanction in this situation. We believe that the Stock Exchange would be greatly strengthened in any action that it chose to take if there were an express legal obligation for its procedures to be followed in a situation of that kind.

We do not believe that that invalidates the strength and importance of the amendment.
The Minister says that there is nothing to stop disclosure being made and the Stock Exchange policing it. It is true that the Stock Exchange has considerable powers, but it feels that those powers would be substantially strengthened and given greater moral force if in addition there were a statutory provision of the kind that has been enacted elsewhere.
The Minister has failed to show why any harm would be done by the acceptance of an amendment which creates a certain parity of treatment, and which those most actively and professionally concerned regard as being a necessary protection for the proper operation of a market in securities. For those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: As Conservative Members are a bit touchy at the moment about Slater Walker, I promise not to refer to the matter again this afternoon. I have too many other important matters to talk about that concern my constituents
The amendment's pedigree is interesting. It does not go back to the Tories' Industrial Relations Act; it first appeared in the Labour Government's Industrial Relations Bill—the 1970 version, which was never enacted. How was the 1971 Act treated by another place, compared with the treatment of the 1975 version? By and large, the two measures are the same in respect of the matters which we are discussing.
I read with interest the debates in another place that took place in 1971. They are the first debates in another place that I have ever read. I noticed that members there seemed to make shorter speeches. I also noticed that the name Lord Terrington kept cropping up. I have checked "Erskine May" to see how far I can go on this matter. It was interesting to learn how the noble Lord had operated in 1971. He moved a similar amendment which would have had the effect of making it unnecessary for a company to disclose to a trade union any information which it did not


need to make available to shareholders due to the provisions of one of the Companies Acts. That would have been a bit restrictive.
In 1971, after a short debate, the noble Lord sought leave to withdraw his amendment. Its withdrawal was accepted. The situation in another place has not changed very much between 1971 and 1975. There is still an inbuilt majority for the Opposition. However, the situation has changed in this place since 1971, in that we now have a Labour Government.
On looking at the debates that took place in Committee in another place on 22nd September, when most of us were in Blackpool, I noticed that the same Lord Terrington moved a similar amendment, which had the same restrictive effect, namely, that information disclosed to trade union representatives should be disclosed to shareholders at the same time. He made a far longer speech than the one he made in 1971. He referred to the discussions that he had had with his friends on the Stock Exchange. Lord Terrington is a member of the Stock Exchange now, as he was in 1971, but in 1971 he did not say anything about that. Things seem to have changed in 1975, because he told the noble Lords about his discussions with the Stock Exchange and about the problems that would be created if the clause were allowed to stay in the Bill unamended.
The noble Lord withdrew his amendment in Committee and went away to have further discussions. On Report, on 13th October, he again moved an amendment—namely, the amendment that we are discussing. There was a long debate about the problems of the Stock Exchange, but no mention was made of the discrepancy between the arguments used in 1971 and 1975. The 1975 amendment was pushed to a Division, with the result that we are debating it—but what has changed between now and 1971? Why push basically the same amendment to a Division in 1975 but not in 1971?

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): It is sabotage.

Mr. Rooker: As I have said, I have consulted "Erskine May"—

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that

Lord Terrington is a Liberal? Of course, there are no Liberals present tonight. Perhaps they are not interested in these matters. Lord Terrington's father was a distinguished Liberal, and I happen to know the present Lord Terrington very well. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should criticise him in this way.

Mr. Rooker: As far as I am aware, I have not said a word of criticism of the noble Lord. It matters not to me which bench he occupies. We have just had a Division in this place, and the Liberals voted with the Tories. Let us not argue about parties; let us not try to confuse the issue in that way. Lord Terrington could have pursued his amendment to a Division in 1971 but he withdrew at the last moment. I am asking why he took that course four years ago but pressed the matter to a Division in 1975.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has referred to the CIR Report No. 31. Many of us have examined that report. It is interesting to learn that when the CIR was discussing attitudes to disclosure that it had found during the course of its investigation it said, in paragraph 93:
We met cases where employers viewed with dismay the idea of giving to unions information which was, in fact, freely available in the company's annual report.
It is no good arguing on the bais of the CIR report. It is no good arguing that employees should not have information because of a case which concerns Birmingham, to which I shall refer. The report meets both sides of the argument.
I do not want to fall foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in my 20 months in the House I have not had experience of the sort of practice adopted by the noble Lord. I took the precaution of reading "Erskine May" and I found a list of words which we cannot use when speaking of their Lordships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are many more forbidden words that are not in that book. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use them.

Mr. Rooker: I do not propose to read the list that appears in page 434 of "Erskine May". I was going to refer to the noble Lord as a Stock Exchange


stool pigeon, but that seemed hardly fair, as he withdrew his amendment in 1971 but did not in 1975. Lo and behold, according to "Erskine May" we cannot refer to those in another place as stool pigeons. However, I question the conduct of a member of either place who will push an amendment to a Division when he knows that he is on a winner but will withdraw a similar amendment when different considerations apply. On the first occasion it may be that the noble Lord did not wish to cause embarrassment to the Government of the day, whether or not he was a member of that party.
That smells a bit. There is no satisfactory explanation, save that in the intervening period the noble Lord's fellow members of the Stock Exchange suddenly realised that he had withdrawn his amendment in 1971 without their approval. It may be that on this occasion they nobbled the noble Lord. It may be that he got the message and pushed his amendment to a Division. That is the situation we are facing today.
There is a fairly tight restriction on many apects of information to which trade unions would be entitled. I shall illustrate the point by referring to two particular cases. Because of the lack of information, people in Birmingham are losing their jobs. An agreement was made in Birmingham on 26th June this year between ASTMS and the Engineering Employers' Federation, connected with a lawn mower manufacturing firm called Charles H. Pugh Limited, of Small Heath, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for sport, who, for obvious reasons cannot raise this matter today. The workers affected live in the West Midlands area.
The agreement contained a provision aimed at putting machinery into mothballs until some time in 1976, when the situation was to be reviewed and a decision made whether to recommence production. In any event, it was laid down that no machinery would be moved within a period of 12 months. Some of the staff were to be retained so that production could be restarted, if and when it became possible.
On 9th October a union official was called to the factory by one or two

workers whose task was to look after the material in mothballs. On arrival, that official discovered that all the machinery had gone to Suffolk. The union did not apply sanctions in respect of that company, because of the promise given by the employers about the machinery and its future use. The workers accepted the good will and, indeed, the word of the company, knowing that the position was to be reviewed in February 1976. However, only three months after the agreement had been reached all the machinery was moved to Suffolk.
The workers and their representatives cannot obtain any answers from Mr. Chick who, apparently, is in charge for the firm. I gather that the company is owned by Birmid Qualcast, a firm not known for good industrial relations practice in the Midlands, and that that firm has taken no action to alleviate the situation. Over 130 people have lost their jobs. That is the first example I wish to quote in support of my argument that we should leave the Bill in the form in which it left this House.

Mr. Brian Walden: Is the situation not even worse than the way in which my hon. Friend has charitably put it? The work force was originally told that redundancies had to occur because of the lack of trade, but it was discovered that the company had already decided to transfer the machinery.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps I have been too charitable, possibly because of the time factor. I have a case to put to the House and it will take a little time to develop. By raising the matter in the House, I hope to do something to alleviate the plight of the workers in that firm. I wish to emphasise that this situation arose because of the lack of information.
Basically, the story began early this morning, when I spent four hours at Companies House researching information about three companies. That was open information, kept in that building by Act of Parliament, and was information lying there in dusty files. It is looked at only when things go wrong. In Birmingham there is a small factory called Tomey Industries Limited, employing about 100 people. It is an old-established Birmingham company and has existed for 120 years.

Mr. Hayhoe: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are working on a tight schedule and have an enormous number of amendments to consider. I do not wish to detract from the importance of the problem he raises and, indeed, of constituency matters. However, I cannot understand how the situation would be altered in any way by Lords Amendment No. 16 either remaining in or being deleted from it—which surely is the point to which we are addressing our minds. However important the hon. Gentleman's argument may be, I do not think it is relevant to the matter before us.

Mr. Rooker: It is highly relevant, because we have to make a case for removing the Lords amendment from the Bill. It is no use the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) trying to silence me when I seek to point out that I spent four hours this morning examining the files of these three companies. It is obvious that what I am about to say will be embarrassing to one or two managers of companies.
I was attempting to deal with Tomey Industries. A couple of weeks ago the workers were called together by the firm, told that there were no orders, and that the firm was closing down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to help the hon. Gentleman and the House, but I must point out that the amendment is related to the Stock Exchange. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to keep his argument as close as possible to the terms of that amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: I understand your dilemma, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in dealing with the Bill, but I believe that I am still in order. I am seeking to draw attention to the restrictive nature of the amendment. I wish to point out that before the workers in that Birmingham factory leave their jobs on 19th December, the Bill will have received the Royal Assent and will be the law of the land. It is surely important to seek to ensure that as it will leave this place the Bill will have some effect on the situation which I have sought to outline. I shall endeavour to keep in order. I shall not go through the seamy details of this case. I shall seek only to bring out the salient points.

The workers were called together two weeks ago and told that the firm was shutting down, following a lack of orders and the worsening economic situation. The workers did not accept that explanation, because they believe that there is plenty of business. Consequently, they asked the company for more information. The company was taken over in January 1974 by another company, called Fordcombe Holdings Limited. The workers' representatives can find out nothing about that company. They have asked the managing director for information. They have made clear to him that they wish to use the eight-week period that remains before the firm closes and their members get the chop to endeavour to do something about the situation.
All this led to my visit to Companies House this morning to find out what I could about Fordcombe Holdings and related companies. Incidentally, the name "Fordcombe Holdings" does not exist in any of the books which I examined in the Library. I have discovered that the company in question was purchased out of the air, as it were, for nothing. It was created in Bristol, was locked away for a few weeks, then took the name of Fordcombe Holdings and took over the firm in Birmingham. That firm now exists as a front for another company, and that is why the trade unions argue that they are unable to obtain the information they need.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That argument may come in later on the Bill, but the question of take-over does not apply on this amendment.

Mr. Rooker: I believe that it is highly relevant that when a firm changes hands the workers should know the full facts. It is in their interest to find out as much information as they can for purposes of collective bargaining, and that is a matter to which these provisions relate. I am trying to illustrate my argument by bringing into focus a situation in daily life.

Mr. John Fraser: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend unduly, but there is nothing in the Lords amendment which restricts the divulging of information to trade unions. If he would like to see me about the problem, I should be happy to help him. However, I emphasise that nothing in the amendment


restricts the divulging of information to workers. It merely places an obligation on a company to disclose matters to the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Rooker: I accept what the Minister says, and indeed the strictures of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is not the position as it is understood to exist. Workers may not be given correct information. Indeed, in the present case that information is being held back and restricted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is hanging his coat on the wrong hook. This is not the amendment on which he should be advancing his case.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have begged the question, because I intended to intervene only once in today's proceedings other than when prompted by the Opposition Member who was talking about price-sensitive information. I have searched through the 200 or so Lords amendments and I am sure that there are three or four hooks that I could have chosen on which to raise this matter.
As we have talked about disclosure of information as the main business, I think it would assist the House if I brought both things in together. The group of workers to whom I have referred have their jobs hanging in the fire over this legislation. That is what they have been told by the company. That is the advice they have been given outside this place. It may be incorrect advice. In the last two weeks the company and all the houses in the road outside it have been mortgaged, and in tracing back the information we find that one of the largest public group building companies in the country—namely, McAlpine—has been operating as a front organisation under assumed names. When that organisation tells members of the company, under the Stock Exchange rules, what has been done in regard to stripping the company's assets and putting workers out of work on 19th December, it will be possible in many ways to get round the position by means of the Lords amendment. It is being done by creating companies to take over others so that the real owners cannot be found. Companies such as the one I have mentioned—the real owners—will be

affected by this and will be worried about their price-sensitive information on the Stock Exchange. The McAlpine company, Kerelaw Holdings Ltd., has 14 members of the McAlpine family as shareholders but not one of them is a director, and the directors are not paid money. It is simply a front organisation for stripping the assets of this little company in Birmingham and putting 120 people out of work.

Mr. John Fraser: May I say to my hon. Friend that we take the view that, even before this Bill becomes law, employers ought, especially in a potential redundancy situation, to disclose the maximum amount of information and to have the maximum amount of consultation with their work force. It is our hope that the Bill will be on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope that my hon. Friend will help it on its passage towards Royal Assent.
As I said earlier, there is nothing in the amendment which prevents disclosure of information to the workers. What is at issue is whether the information relatting to assets should also be disclosed through the relevant stock exchanges.
I can do little other than repeat the arguments that I used in my opening. First, there is an element of uncertainty in the wording of the Lords amendment. It uses the word "could"—that there could be an effect on assets. When I was unwise enough to use that sort of wording in the Sex Discrimination Bill I was attacked by the Opposition and took it out of the Bill. Secondly, there is no sanction. Thirdly, if we were to agree to the Lords amendment we should be giving the Stock Exchange the power to legislate, because it could change its requirements, and this would have the effect, as it were, of its almost passing subsidiary legislation, with the obligation which could be picked up from the Lords amendment.

Mr. Peter Hordern: The amendment does not give the Stock Exchange any further powers than it now possesses. The only power it now possesses is the listing power—that is to say, whether a company should have its shares quoted on the Stock Exchange.
The difficulty that the Stock Exchange is now put into is that, if information by law must be given to trade unions, and


if that information is price-sensitive, the Stock Exchange is likely to feel that its own rules have been offended against, and it might therefore have to consider whether the quotation of the particular company should remain on the list. That is the difficulty in which the Stock Exchange is placed by virtue of the Bill as it stands today.

Mr. John Fraser: I do not think that invalidates my point about the Stock Exchange having almost the power to legislate. If it changes its rules there is no sanction, but there is at any rate a legal obligation imposed by the Lords amendment which could be used in respect of that change of its rules.

Mr. Brittan: Does not the Minister agree that there is a precedent for the Stock Exchange being allowed to do something analogous to this? I refer to Section 39(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1948, passed by a Government of similar political complexion, which states that
a prospectus giving the particulars and information aforesaid in the form in which they are so required to be published shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Schedule to this Act".
Does he not agree that the words
so required to be published
mean "as required by the Stock Exchange", therefore enabling changes in requirements which may be made from time to time to have the force of law?

Mr. Fraser: I am well aware that the statutory requirements for the publication of a prospectus can be bypassed if one complies with the Stock Exchange rules, but I think there is this difference. The publication of a prospectus is a

once-for-all event. The obligation to publish information is a continuing event.

I turn now to the point about parity between shareholders and workers. One cannot have absolute parity between shareholders and workers. Workers are people whose livelihood and future are very much bound up with negotiations in which disclosure is important. One cannot always have parity between a shareholder holding a piece of paper and a man who is devoting his life to a job.

I wonder whether there is really a problem which is not soluble simply by the stock exchanges changing the rules. I do not believe that there is so severe a problem. After all, for many years in the past the most reputable and good companies have been disclosing this kind of information to workers' representatives. I have been from company to company in which weekly and monthly forecasts of sales and profitability were given to the workers' representatives. No real problem has emerged.

I submit that the amendment goes about it in the wrong way. If there is felt to be a need to have a disclosure of information for the protection of shareholders, the right way to go about it is for the stock exchanges to change their rules and not put an undue obligation on companies to disclose information of the same nature as they disclose to trade union representatives.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 222.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, Hugh
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacCormick, Iain
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett), W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thompson, George


Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John
Tomlinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hatton, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Henderson, Douglas
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Horam, John
Newens. Stanley
Watt, Hamish


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
Wigley, Dafydd


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Hamilton.


Lambie, David
Roper, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, John
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Michael
Biggs-Davlson, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Awdry, Daniel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Bulmer, Esmond


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beith, A. J.
Brittan, Leon
Carlisle, Mark

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 18

RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL DUTY UNDER S. 17

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 15, line 38, after "would" insert "be likely to".

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The reason for asking the House to disagree is that the amendment weakens the right of union representatives to be given information, because an employer would no longer have to show that the disclosure of a piece of information would actually cause substantial injury, but merely that it would be likely to do so.
As the Bill was drafted, if an employer considers that disclosure would cause substantial injury to the undertaking he


may refuse to give the relevant information to the representative of the trade union. The union can then go to the Central Arbitration Committee, which will have to determine whether or not disclosure would cause substantial injury.
The amendment, however, would require the CAC to form a judgment about the probability of a certain event taking place, which might depend on secondary events quite out of control of both the employer and the union. This makes the CAC's task much more difficult and increases the number of cases where employers will be able to refuse passing information to unions.
We have now reached the curious situation of praying in aid the Industrial Relations Act 1971, but I will succumb to the temptation and say that the wording we have used here is not substantially different from the disclosure wording used in the 1971 Act. Perhaps that is one of its few merits. I hope that the House will accept the precedent and agree to disagree with the Lords.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe: As time goes by the merits of the 1971 Act will be more evident to people. It used to be quoted by Labour Members in terms of pure horror, but time has had a mellowing influence and it is now quoted as a veritable paragon for legislation on certain matters.
On this issue the words in the current legislation have been varied a little. On Report, the words "cause substantial injury" were substituted for "seriously prejudice". A powerful case has been made that the words "be likely to" are more likely to offer protection. One accepts, as the Minister says, that these words will create some barriers in the way of divulging information, but without them substantial injury might be caused. A balance has to be struck here between disclosure and injury which might put people's jobs at risk.
We have debated this matter a number of times and we feel that the Lords are right. However, we are running on a tight timetable. The interventions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on the last amendment did not help. It might, therefore, be a gesture if we did not divide on this point. That

does not mean that we accept the Government's argument. One of our problems is that the Government have steamrollered and dragooned so much legislation through the House that we cannot debate all these matters as they should be debated.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 23

GENERAL EXCLUSIONS FROM RIGHT UNDER SECTION 22

Lords Amendment: No. 20, in page 20, line 10, at end insert
or of an interruption in the supply of fuel and power which is beyond the control of the employer

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to take from employees the right to guarantee payments where lay off or short-time working results from an interruption of fuel and power supplies beyond the control of their employer. Clauses 22 to 26 establish a right in the first five days of any lay off in any quarter of a year to be paid a calculated daily payment subject to a £6 limit. There is a general exclusion in Clause 23 of those cases where the lay off results from a strike or lockout involving the employer or an associated employer. The amendment would extend the exclusion to fuel and power strikes and lockouts.
It is not logical to make an extension to one group of strikes outside the realm in which the employer or employees are concerned and not extend the principle into other strike areas. I can recognise the logic of the argument that no guarantee payments should be paid to anyone whose lay off is the result of a strike, but that is not the argument in the amendment.
The amendment would have a much wider effect. It would cause those who were laid off or put on short time as a result of a breakdown in electricity supplies, a failure of fuel delivery or anything in that area, also to lose their rights to guarantee payments. That is another objection.


If it is argued that because an employer has no control over an interruption in fuel and power supplies he should not contribute to guarantee payments, it should also logically be argued that anything else over which he has no control should free him from that obligation, but the whole purpose of guarantee payments is to insure the employee in a limited way, to guarantee him this payment for the first five days of any lay off or short-time working in a quarter.
That is a modest right. Most white-collar workers expect, as a normal feature of their terms and conditions, far better guarantees against such contingencies. It would be wrong for the House to agree with the amendment and reduce still further a limited but important right of employees who, in, unfortunately, all too many cases, suffer from lay off and short-time working.

Mr. David Madel: This amendment has become very relevant in view of the disputes and difficulties that there have been in the nationalised industries in the past few years. I expect the Government to say that that has all changed and that we have such a peaceful scene on the industrial relations front that it could not happen again. However, there could perfectly easily be an interruption in coal, electricity or gas supplies. That is why this amendment was moved in another place.
The other point that is highly relevant is the fact that, with the rise in unemployment and the downturn in demand, some industries are in such a difficult and precarious position that if there were a breakdown in the supplies of fuel and power they would be put in an even more difficult position. In another place it was pointed out that when there is an interruption in fuel and power supplies the private employer is helpless and that the private employer has not been party to the negotiations which in that particular industry may have resulted in a breakdown in the supplies of fuel and power. The private employer has no income with which to pay the work force and is, therefore, put in an impossible situation.
The Minister asked, if we were to allow this exception, would there not be a danger that many other exceptions would

be used? As fuel and power are essential to a factory, and without their supply the factory is at a complete standstill, we believe that, in logic, we can draw this narrow line, as was done in another place.
The Minister who answered the debate in another place, Lord Melchett, said that the employer could take alternative action:
for example, by arranging for different sources of supply, rescheduling work, and so on."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22nd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 118.]
That is an unrealistic answer to the points raised earlier in that debate. The employer is not in that position if there is an interruption in the supply of fuel and power.
The Minister here did not answer this point fully in his remarks this afternoon. We know how difficult the situation is for industry at present. We know, from what has happened in the past three to four years, the impossible position industries are in if there is an interruption in these supplies.
In the interests of time we do not intend to divide the House on this amendment, but we reiterate that we can, in logic, draw this distinction between an interruption in fuel and power supplies and other alterations or difficulties which might occur.
We regret that the Minister cannot accept this amendment. If it were agreed to, the circumstances envisaged would not necessarily arise very often. Should we again—and we hope we do not—have an interruption in these supplies, we warn the Minister that some firms will face enormous difficulties in having to meet this guarantee payment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 34

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 27, line 12, leave out Clause 34.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments No. 78, No. 118—after Clause 101, in page 86, line 44,


insert the following new Clause "L" (Entitlement to unemployment benefit and recoupment of that benefit and supplementary benefit):
.—(1) Section 139(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 (submission of regulations in draft to the National Insurance Advisory Committee) shall not apply to regulations made under that Act and contained in a statutory instrument which states that the regulations provide only that a day in respect of which there is payable a particular description of any payment to which this section applies shall not be treated as a day of unemployment for the purposes of entitlement to unemployment benefit.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for all or any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection with respect to payments to which this section applies and which are subject of proceedings before, an industrial tribunal, that is to say—

(a) enabling the Secretary of State to recover from an employer, by way of total or partial recoupment of unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit, a sum not exceeding the amount of the prescribed element of the monetary award;
(b) requiring or authorising the tribunal to order the payment of such a sum, by way of total or partial recoupment of either benefit, to the Secretary of State instead of to the employee;
(c) requiring the tribunal to order the payment to the employee of only the excess of the prescribed element of the monetary award over the amount of any unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit shown to the tribunal to have been paid to the employee, and enabling the Secretary of State to recover from the employer, by way of total or partial recoupment of the benefit, a sum not exceeding that amount.

(3) Without prjudice to subsection (2) above, regulations under that subsection may—

(a) be so framed as to apply to all payments to which this section applies or one or more classes of those payments and so as to apply both to unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit or only to one of those benefits;
(b) confer powers and impose duties on industrial tribunals, on the Supplementary Benefits Commission and on insurance officers and other persons;
(c) confer on an employee who is aggrieved by any decision of the Commission as to the total or partial recoupment of supplementary benefit in pursuance of the regulations (including any decision as to the amount of benefit) a right to appeal against the decision to an Appeal Tribunal constituted under the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 and for that purpose apply section 18(2) and (3) of that Act (appeals) with or without modifications;
(d) provide for the proof in proceedings before industrial tribunals (whether by certificate or in any other manner) of any

amount of unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit paid to an employee; and
(e) make different provision for different cases.

(4) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that the power to make regulations under section 114 of the Social Security Act 1975 for the determination of questions arising in connection with that Act includes power to make regulations for the determination of any question arising as to the total or partial recoupment of unemployment benefit in pursuance of regulations under subsection (2) above (including any decision as to the amount of benefit).
(5) Where in pursuance of any regulations under that subsection a sum has been recovered by or paid to the Secretary of State by way of total or partial recoupment of unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit—

(a) section 119(1) and (2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (repayment of benefit revised on review) shall not apply to the unemployment benefit recouped; and
(b) the following provisions of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, that is to say, section 23 (recovery of cost of supplementary benefit from persons liable for maintenance) and section 26 (recovery of benefit and other sums in cases of misrepresentation and non-disclosure), shall not apply to the supplementary benefit recouped.

(6) Any amount found to have been duly recovered by or paid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of regulations under subsection (2) above by way of total or partial recoupment of unemployment benefit shall be paid into the National Insurance Fund.
(7) This section applies—

(a) to a payment of wages or compensation for loss of wages;
(b) to any payment under this Act by an employer to an employee or a payment by an employer to an employee of a nature similar to, or for a purpose corresponding to the purpose of, any payment under this Act.

(8) In this section—
monetary award", in relation to an industrial tribunal, means the amount which is awarded, or ordered to be paid, to the employee by the tribunal or would be so awarded or ordered apart from any provision of regulations under this section;
the prescribed element", in relation to any monetary award, means so much of that award as is attributable to such matters as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (2) above;
supplementary benefit" means benefit under the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966; and
unemployment benefit" means unemployment benefit under the Social Security Act 1975.
—No. 233 and No. 234

Mr. Fraser: The first two amendments are paving amendments for the substantial one in this group, namely No. 118. The need for the new clause and the consequential amendments arises because the Bill establishes entitlement to a number of payments equivalent to wages which can be awarded by a tribunal in respect of a past period for which unemployment or supplementary benefit may have been paid. In such cases the tribunal award would have the effect retroactively to disqualify the employee for receipt of benefit. It would obviously be against public policy to allow the employee to retain the money paid in benefit on top of the other payment, for example, guarantee pay, arrears of wages and so on.
The new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations which will enable the benefit in these cases to be recovered from the employer, so that the employee will receive from the employer the amount awarded by the tribunal less the benefit he has received. The details of the procedure for recovery will be laid down in the regulations.

Mr. Brittan: We do not have any objection in principle to what these amendments seek to do. We strongly support that principle.
I want to raise one or two queries about the machinery set out in Lords Amendment No. 118. As the Minister will recall, this matter was put for the first time in another place and was not in any sense debated there. The noble Lord who dealt with the matter said that it would be reconsidered, but I do not believe that it was. Why is it that the regulations that will have to be laid to give effect to this amendment will not be put before the National Insurance Advisory Committee? I do not understand why this exemption is called for. There may be some reason, but it is not clear and it has not been explained.
The more important point is that the machinery that is envisaged is one whereby the payments that have been made are collected back from the employer. That is all very well as long as there is an appropriate limitation on the amount that can be obtained at an industrial tribunal. It is laid down in subsection (2)(c) that the regulations may require:
the tribunal to order the payment to the employee of only the excess of the prescribed

element of the monetary award over the amount of any unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit shown to the tribunal to have been paid to the employee".
Why is it necessary to have (a) and (b)? Is not (c) what is really required? If (a) and (b) are included, there is a risk that the employer will be required to pay back the benefit that has been paid to the employee and that none the less the award which has been made by the tribunal will not have the corresponding diminution. Perhaps the Minister will say that the point will be taken care of by the regulations.
It is fundamental to the whole scheme that an employee should not be able to claim twice over. Similarly, to the extent that the employer has to account to the Secretary of State for any payments that have been made or has to pay back any payments that have been made, it should be made clear that the employer should not be made to pay back the social security benefits and that there should not be a corresponding offset in the award that is subsequently made by a tribunal. It may be that that is made clear somewhere in this rather complicated proviso. I should appreciate guidance on this.
Alternatively, would it not be preferable for the phrase "prescribed element", which is not defined, to be defined in a way that would make it clear that the effect is intended to be as the Minister has stated and that there would be no risk of the hazard to which I have alluded occurring.
I shall be grateful if the Minister can answer those points. Subject to that, we have no objection to the principle of the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to the exclusion of submissions to the NIAC. That Committee's considerations can take a long time, perhaps several months, and this would present practical difficulties when new regulations were urgently needed. I understand that it is not by any means unprecedented when one has this situation to exclude the otherwise mandatory consultation with the NIAC.
6.30 p.m.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the amount that can be


recovered is that that is something that will have to be dealt with by regulations. We certainly take note of the point that the hon. Gentleman had raised.
The clause gives enabling powers for various methods of recovery, if possible, and it is advisable to keep all the alternatives open. That is why there is this number of choices, (a), (b), and (c), in that part of the clause to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
I do not pretend that drawing up the regulations will not be without some difficulty. It was felt best to have wide enabling powers in regulations rather than to have them restrictive.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the regulations incorporate the principle that if an employer is required to pay back benefits that have been paid to the employee, there should be a corresponding offset to any entitlement that the employee may have in industrial tribunal proceedings?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that I could given an undertaking in the terms for which the hon. Gentleman asks, because it may well be that the recoupment will take place after the tribunal has sat and made its award. There would be considerable difficulties if there were to be a further recoupment after the award by the tribunal. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I certainly could not give such an undertaking.

Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the point that the Minister has made about subsesequent events occurring. However, will he undertake to deal with the point in some alternative way if it cannot be dealt with in that way?
In other words, will he undertake to ensure that the employer is not out of pocket more than he ought to be and does not have to pay more than the entitlement because of some obligation to pay social security benefits?

Mr. Fraser: I can give the assurance that the award would normally be made on that basis.

Question put an agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 36

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEE IN CONNECTION WITH PREGNANCY AND CONFINEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 29, line 13, leave out "if he so requests".

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The substance of this amendment was a matter debated in Standing Committee and about which I think that we may now have reached some degree of understanding across the Floor of the House. We understand that in Committee the Opposition had reservations. Among other reasons, let me say briefly that perhaps the principal reason for our disagreement is that a requirement of this kind would make it possible for an employee to be denied either maternity pay or reinstatement for a purely technical reason. For example, in a situation in which both sides clearly understood that she was going on maternity leave and wished to claim her rights under the Bill, the fact that she had not put it in writing would mean that an employer could later refuse to reinstate or pay her, purely on a technicality.
It is for that reason and other reasons with which I shall not now bore the House that I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause "A"

MATERNITY PAY FUND

Lords Amendment: No. 34, after Clause 39, in page 31, line 28, insert new Clause "A":

Maternity Pay Fund

".—(1) There shall be established under the control and management of the Secretary of State a fund to be called the Maternity Pay Fund out of which payments shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this Act

(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare accounts of the Maternity Pay Fund in such form as the Treasury may direct and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than the end of the month of November following the end of the financial


year to which the accounts relate; and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify every such account and shall lay copies thereof, together with his report thereon, before Parliament.

(3) Any money in the Maternity Pay Fund may from time to time be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and invested by them, in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury, in any such manner as may be specified by an order of the Treasury for the time being in force under section 22(1) of the National Savings Bank Act 1971."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss the following Lords amendments:
No. 35, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause B:

Financing of Maternity Pay Fund

".—(1) In the Social Security Act 1975 for the words "appropriate allocation to the Redundancy Fund", wherever they occur, substitute the words "appropriate employment protection allocation".

(2) In section 1(1) of that Act (outline of contributory system), after the words "Redundancy Fund" insert the words "and the Maternity Pay Fund".

(3) In section 4(6)(b) of that Act (amount of secondary Class I contribution), for the words "8·5 per cent." substitute the words "8·55 per cent.".

(4) In section 122(4) of that Act (power to alter contributions), after the words "the Redundancy Fund" insert the words "or the Maternity Pay Fund", and for the words "that Fund" substitute the words "either or both those Funds".

(5) In section 134 of that Act (destination of contributions etc.)—

(a) in subsection (4), for the words "0·2 per cent." substitute the words "0·25 per cent."; and
(b) in subsection (5)(b), for the words "that Fund" substitute the words "the Redundancy Fund and the Maternity Pay Fund in such shares as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury determine."

(6) In Schedule 20 to that Act (glossary of expressions), at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert in the first column the entry "Appropriate employment protection allocation" and against it in the second column insert the entry "See section 134(4)"."

No. 36, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause C:

Advances out of National Loans Fund

".—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) to (4) below, the Treasury may

from time to time advance out of the National Loans Fund to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Maternity Pay Fund, such sums as the Secretary of State may request; and any sums advanced to the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid into that Fund.

(2) The aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of sums advanced to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall not at any time exceed £4 million, or such larger sum, not exceeding £10 million, as the Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury determine.

(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resoluton of each House of Parliament.

(4) Any sums advanced to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall be repaid by the Secretary of State out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the National Loans Fund in such manner and at such times, and with interest thereon at such rate, as the Treasury may direct."

No. 37, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause D—

Maternity pay rebate.

".—(1) Subject to any regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall pay out of the Maternity Pay Fund to every employer who makes a claim under this section and who being liable to pay, has paid, maternity pay to an employee, an amount equal to the full amount of maternity pay so paid (in this section and sections (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund), (Supplementary provisions in relation to employer's insolvency) and (Complaint and appeals to industrial tribunal) below referred to as a "rebate").

(2) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and if he is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so having regard to all the relevant circumstances, pay such a rebate to an employer who makes a claim under this section and who has paid maternity pay to an employee in circumstances in which, by reason of the time limit provided for in section 39(2) above, a complaint by the employee has been dismissed, or would not be entertained by an industrial tribunal.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, a payment of contractual remuneration by an employer shall be treated as a payment of maternity pay to the extent that, by virtue of section 38(4) above,—

(a) it extinguishes the employer's liability to pay maternity pay; or
(b) in a case falling within subsection (2) above, it would extinguish that liability if a complaint by the employee were not time-barred as described in that subsection.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations as to the making of claims


for rebates under this section and such regulations may in particular—

(a) require a claim to be made within such time limit as may be prescribed; and
(b) require a claim to be supported by such evidence as may be prescribed."

No. 38, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause E:

"Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund

—(1) Where an employee claims that her employer is liable to pay her maternity pay and—

(a) that she has taken all reasonable steps (other than proceedings to enforce a tribunal award) to recover payment from the employer; or
(b) that her employer is insolvent (as defined in section 61 below for the purposes of sections 56 to 60 below);

and that the whole or part of the maternity pay remains unpaid, the employee may apply to the Secretary of State under this section.

(2) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is well founded the Secretary of State shall pay the employee out of the Maternity Pay Fund the amount of the maternity pay which appears to the Secretary of State to be unpaid.

(3) A payment made by the Secretary of State to an employee under this section shall be treated for the purpose of discharging any liability of the employer to the employee as if it had been made by the employer."

No. 39, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause F:

"Reduction of rebate in certain cases.

—(1) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee in respect of unpaid maternity pay in a case falling within section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund(1)(a) above and it appears to the Secretary of State that the employer's default in payment was without reasonable excuse, the Secretary of State may recover from the employer such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, not exceeding the amount of maternity pay which the employer failed to pay.

(2) Where a sum is recovered by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section that sum shall be paid into the Maternity Pay Fund."

No. 40, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause G—

Supplementary provisions in relation to employer's insolvency

".—(1) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee under section 56 below (which provides for payments out of the Redundancy Fund in respect of certain debts where an employer is insolvent) and that payment, in whole or in part, represents arrears of pay, then, in ascertaining for the purpose of

section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above the amount of any unpaid maternity pay, section 38(4) above shall apply as if the arrears of pay in question had been duly paid by the employer to the employee in accordance with the contract of employment.

(2) Where the Secretary of State makes a payment to an employee out of the Redundancy Fund under section 56 below which, if it had been made by the employer to the employee, would have attracted a rebate from the Maternity Pay Fund in accordance with section (Maternity pay rebate) above, then, the Secretary of State shall make a payment out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the Redundancy Fund of an amount corresponding to the amount of rebate which would have been so payable."

No. 41, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause—

Complaint and appeals to industrial tribunal

"—(1) A person who has—

(a) made a claim for a rebate under section (Maternity pay rebate) above, in a case to which subsection (1) of that section applies; or
(b) applied for a payment under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above,

may, subject to subsection (5) below, present a complaint to an industrial tribunal that—

(i) the Secretary of State has failed to make any such payment; or
(ii) any such payment made by the Secretary of State is less than the amount which should have been paid.

(2) Where an industrial tribunal finds that the Secretary of State ought to make any such payment or further payment, it shall make a declaration to that effect and shall also declare the amount of any such payment which it finds the Secretary of State ought to make.

(3) An employer who has made a claim for a rebate under section (Maternity pay rebate) above, in a case to which subsection (2) of that section applies, may, subject to subsection (5) below, appeal to an industrial tribunal on the ground that—

(a) the Secretary of State has refused to pay a rebate; or
(b) any rebate paid by the Secretary of State is less than the amount which should have been paid,
and if on any such appeal the tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable having regard to all the relevant circumstances that a rebate should be paid or, as the case may be, finds that a further payment by way of rebate should be made, the tribunal shall determine accordingly, and the Secretary of State shall comply with the determination.

(4) Where the Secretary of State determines that an amount is recoverable from an employer undersection (Reduction of rebate in certain cases) above, the employer may, subject to subsection (5) below, appeal to an industrial


tribunal; and if on any such appeal the tribunal is satisfied that no amount should be recovered from the employer, or that a lesser or greater amount be recovered but in any case not exceeding the amount of maternity pay which the employer failed to pay, the tribunal shall determine accordingly and the amount, if any, so determined shall be the amount recoverable from the employer by the Secretary of State.

(5) An industrial tribunal shall not entertain a complaint or appeal under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the relevant decision of the Secretary of State was communicated to the complainant or appellant or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint or appeal to be presented within the period of three months."

No. 42, in page 31, line 28, insert the following Clause I—

Provisions as to information

".—(1) Where an application is made to the Secretary of State by an employee under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above, the Secretary of State may require—

(a) the employer to provide him with such information as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purpose of determining whether the employee's application is well founded; and
(b) any person having the custody or control of any relevant records or other documents to produce for examination on behalf of the Secretary of State any such document in that person's custody or under his control which is of such a description as the Secretary of State may require.

(2) Any such requirement shall be made by a notice in writing given to the person on whom the requirement is imposed and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent notice so given.

(3) If a person refuses or wilfully neglects to furnish any information or produce any document which he has been required to furnish or produce by a notice under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

(4) If any person in making a claim under section (Maternity pay rebate) above or an application under section (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund) above or in purporting to comply with a requirement of a notice under this section knowingly or recklessly makes any false statement he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."

No. 61, in cause 55, in page 45, leave out line 9.

No. 63, in Clause 56, page 45, line 27, leave out from beginning to first "the" in line 30.

No. 132, in Clause 109, page 93, line12, after "21" insert "(Provisions as to information)".

No. 133, in page 93, line 37, after "sections" insert:
(Provisions as to information) (3) and (4)".

No. 137, in Clause 111, page 95, line13, after "include" insert:
(a) any sums payable out of the National Loans Funds under section (Advances out of National Loans Fund) above;
(b)".

No. 138, in page 95, line 14, leave out "the National Loans" and insert "that".

No. 139, in page 95, line 17, after "such" insert "sums or".

No. 140, in page 95, line 17, at end insert:
(2A) There shall be paid out of the Maternity Pay Fund into the Consolidated Fund sums equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising his functions under the provisions of this Act relating to maternity pay.

No. 141, in page 95, line 28, at end insert:
except sums which are expressly required to be paid into the Maternity Pay Fund, the Redundancy Fund or the National Insurance Fund.
(5) As respects any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the expenses which under section 135(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1975 are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, subsection (l)(b) above is without prejudice to the provision made by subsection (5) of that section for reimbursement out of the National Insurance Fund.

No. 146, in Clause 115, page 99, line 31, leave out from beginning to second "the".

No. 147, in page 99, line 33, after "authority" insert:
(a) where the arrangements relate to the provisions of this Act relating to maternity pay, to make any necessary financial adjustments between the Maternity Pay Fund and any fund established under Northern Irish legislation; and
(b) where the arrangements relate to the provisions of sections 55 to 59 above,

No. 186, in Schedule 15, page 158, line 3, at end insert—


12A. In section 31(4) (repayment from Redundancy Fund in certain cases) for the words "the appropriate allocation to the Redundancy Fund" substitute the words "the amount paid into the Redundancy Fund from the appropriate employment protection allocation".
12B. In section 32(5) (definition of insolvency), at the end of paragraph (a) insert the words "or a receiving order is made against him.
12C. In section 32(6) (definition of insolvency in Scotland)—

(a) for the words "paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute the words "paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)";
(b) in paragraph (a) as substituted omit the word "or" in the third place where it occurs; and
(c) after paragraph (b) as substituted insert the following paragraph—

": or
(c) where the employer is a company, a winding up order has been made or a resolution for voluntary winding up is passed with respect to it or a receiver of its undertaking is duly appointed"."

No. 232, in line 5 in the Title, after "associations;" insert "to provide for the establishment and operation of a Maternity Pay Fund;".

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to be able to ask the House to agree with the Lords in these amendments.
The House will recall that the original scheme for maternity pay which required new employers to pay employees for six weeks while they were on maternity leave was strongly criticised both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It was claimed that this was unfair on those industries with a high proportion of women employees and that in some sectors, notably the textile industries, it could well have an adverse effect on the employment of women. It was also argued that the requirements would bear particularly heavily on small firms, and particularly those with a large proportion of women employees.
On Report both the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise)—a most unlikely combination—pressed strongly for an alternative scheme, based on central funding and financed by employers contributions only. I acknowledged at the time the strength of this argument and undertook, without any commitment whatsoever, to examine the possibility of

doing what they asked. The number and complexity of these new clauses and the attendant amendments indicate how right I was at the time to spell out all the formidable difficulties. As the House can now see, however, we have overcome them, and I am glad to be able to present a new set of arrangements which I hope and believe will commend themselves to all hon. Members.
Perhaps I may speak briefly about what is admittedly a lengthly set of complex clauses and amendments. The new clauses set out in Amendments Nos. 34 to 42 establish a maternity pay fund on similar lines to the redundancy payments fund. Employers will be required to contribute a small additional amount to their national insurance contribution, which would be used by the Secretary of State for Employment to set up a maternity pay fund from which employers could claim a rebate of any maternity pay they have paid out to their employees. The scheme is devised to be as simple as possible to operate and to fit in with the system already established in the Bill. The only step that is added is that an employer who has complied with the requirements of the Bill to pay maternity pay may apply to the fund for a full rebate of his expenditure subject, of course, to the limits set out in the Bill.
There will be an additional cost of about £ 900,000 a year, which will be the cost of collecting the additional contributions and administering the fund through the offices of the Department of Employment. It is expected that there will be some 220,000 claims for maternity pay in any one year and that by the time the scheme is implemented the annual cost of maternity pay will be about £25 million. This will mean an addition of 0·05 per cent. on the national insurance contribution for employers. This contribution will be paid by employers for all their employees, and not only by employees.
I do not know whether the House wishes me to go into detail on these matters. It may be as well if I rest at this point but express my willingness, the House permitting, to seek to answer any questions that may be raised.
I ought not to leave the matter without saying again that these new clauses


and the amendments are a major change in this part of the Bill. Inevitably, they have had to be made in a very short space of time. Those who have pressed for the changes and, indeed, the whole House, will share my appreciation of those who have worked so hard to make them possible. The changes not only indicate the Government's readiness to listen and to respond to reasoned argument, even after winning a vote on the issue, but they also demonstrate the very real influence of debate in this Chamber.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Minister was right to end his remarks with comments about the advantage of the debates we have had on this particular subject, both in Committee and in the House, because the Government started off quite clearly of the view that this was a burden which should be placed upon individual employers of the women concerned. The Opposition argued strongly from the Second Reading debate—my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and myself at the beginning and end of that debate—and right through the Committee stage. Arguments were produced from the Treasury Bench to the effect that what we were proposing would not be right and that what they had in mind, placing the burden on individual employers, was right.
I am delighted with the way that the argument put forward has won through and that we now have a much fairer spreading of the burden right across the field of employment. Some of the women who might well not have been employed or might have lost jobs if the legislation had gone through in its original form must be thankful, primarily to hon. Members of the Opposition, although we are grateful for the support that came to us from the Government back benches on Report, and for the action that those in another place have taken in order to make this possible. Their Lordly noses can be poked into affairs with great merit to all concerned.
I join with the Minister in saying that this has been a triumph for the democratic process. I only wish that the Government's mind was open on the many other issues on this Bill, where the arguments are as compelling and

powerful and correctly enunciated from these benches. However, we are grateful for this chink of openness and these changes. We associate ourselves with the thanks to those behind the scenes who have done a substantial drafting job in getting these complex provisions into a form which we can now legislate.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with special entry.]

New Clause "D"

MATERNITY PAY REBATE

Lords Amendment: No. 37, after Clause 39, in page 31, line 28, insert
.—(1) Subject to any regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall pay out of the Maternity Pay Fund to every employer who makes a claim under this section and who being liable to pay, has paid, maternity pay to an employee, an amount equal to the full amount of maternity pay so paid (in this section and sections (Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund), (Supplementary provisions in relation to employer's insolvency) and (Complaint and appeals to industrial tribunal) below referred to as a "rebate").
(2) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and if he is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so having regard to all the relevant circumstances, pay such a rebate to an employer who makes a claim under this section and who has paid maternity pay to an employee in circumstances in which, by reason of the time limit provided for in section 39(2) above, a complaint by the employee has been dismissed, or would not be entertained by an industrial tribunal.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, a payment of contractual remuneration by an employer shall be treated as a payment of maternity pay to the extent that, by virtue of section 38(4) above,—

(a) it extinguishes the employer's liability to pay maternity pay; or
(b) in a case falling within subsection (2) above, it would extinguish that liability if a complaint by the employee were not time-barred as described in that subsection.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations as to the making of claims for rebates under this section and such regulations may in particular—

(a) require a claim to be made within such time limit as may be prescribed; and
(b) require a claim to be supported by such evidence as may be prescribed.

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords amendment made, in subsection (1) leave out 'Payments to employees out of Maternity Pay Fund)'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Page 36, line 27, leave out from "a" to end of line 28 and insert "specified union.


(4A) For the purposes of this section a trade union—


(a) shall be taken to be specified for the purposes of, or in relation to, a union membership agreement if it is specified in the agreement or is accepted by the parties to the agreement as being the equivalent of a union so specified; and


(b) shall also be treated as so specified if—


(i) the Service has made a recommendation for recognition of that union covering the employee in question which is operative within the meaning of section 15 above; or


(ii) subject to subsection (4B) below, the union has referred a recognition issue covering that employee to the Service under section 11 above and it has not withdrawn the reference, or from the reference, and the issue has not been settled or reported on under section 12 above.


(4B) Subsection (4A)(b)(ii) above shall not apply where the reference is such a reference as is described in section 12(2) above on which, in accordance with that subsection, the Service declines to proceed."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 14, leave out 'subject to subsection (4B) below'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time the two other Government amendments to this Lords amendment, and also Lords Amendment No. 200 and the Government amendments thereto.

Mr. Booth: The effect of these Lords amendments as we propose that they should be amended is to simplify the procedure for bringing this protection to an end if ACAS declines to proceed with a recognition reference, if, for example, it is frivolous.

Mr. Madel: I hope that we can have some clarification here. When the amendment was moved by Lord Jacques in the other place on 23rd September, he said that it linked the safeguards to recognition, adding:
The amendments ensure that any union which seeks recognition for the first time, or seeks to have its existing recognition confirmed, cannot find that its position is undermined while its claim is under consideration

Clause 45

TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 52, in

…"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23rd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 185.]

It is all very well to say that, but one can envisage circumstances in which a union might begin to have its position undermined. Will the Minister tell us, therefore, what could be done when ACAS was considering whether a union should be recognised and action was taken within the place of work which undermined the position as it was being considered by ACAS?

Second, the Government's amendment to line 16 of Lords Amendment No. 52 refers to Clause 12—the inquiry and report on a recognition issue—and the words of subsection (2) provide that the service would decline to proceed on a reference under Clause 11 if it felt that the issue was substantially the same as an issue which had been previously raised but that it would go ahead if the circumstances had changed.

I ask for clarification here because this matter has been brought to our attention as a result of the amendment moved in the other place. I assume that circumstances would have changed if, for example, membership of the union seeking recognition had substantially


increased or, perhaps, the union might have been recognised in similar firms. In other words, a particular industry might have had this difficulty of union recognition across the country, some plants or factories might have taken the dispute to ACAS, and ACAS might have agreed that the union be recognised. We want to know a little more about that.

In the same speech in the other place, the Minister said that ACAS might recommend on an informal basis that special terms should be included in the closed shop agreement. Here again, doing our duty as an Opposition, we seek more information about what the Minister meant in saying that, because there was no clarification at that stage. The debate was fairly brief and the Lords agreed to the amendment without a Division.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I apologise to the House for not having explained the matter fully. We are asking the House to accept our amendments and the Lords amendments as amended for this reason. The Lords amendments provide that, during the time when an independent union has referred a recognition issue to ACAS under Clause 11 and that issue is still under consideration, or if the union has been recommended for recognition by ACAS and the recommendation is still current, the union shall be deemed to be "specified" for the purposes of a union membership agreement even if the agreement does not so provide. This means that the members of the union which is recognised or is claiming recognition may not be fairly dismissed, without compensation, for refusing to belong to some other union, and may not be penalised by the employer for taking part in the activities of their union on his premises at any appropriate time.
The intention of the amendments is to ensure that a union which genuinely seeks recognition, if only to a limited extent, from an employer and which ACAS considers has a valid claim cannot have its position undercut by the conclusion of a closed shop agreement requiring its members to join some other union or be dismissed. It is conceivable that a union might have a perfectly valid claim to be recognised in respect of certain rights on behalf of its members while not having a right to nego-

tiate for them on any other matter. This is an understandable possibility where unions have a restricted membership because of the specialised skills or interests of its members, or even where it applies on a restricted area basis.
Any developments which would enable union members to be dismissed even while their union was seeking a temporary recognition would prejudice an ACAS investigation of a new recognition claim, and if ACAS had recommended recognition they would amount to a deliberate flouting of that recommendation.
The amendments do not, however, leave the way open to splinter unions with no serious pretensions to recognition to interfere with established collective bargaining arrangements and closed shop agreements. ACAS will quickly be able to dismiss vexatious claims aimed purely at gaining temporary protection against fair dismissal for a union's members, and the protection will cease as soon as ACAS has disposed of the reference.
There is an analogy between this consideration and that which we conducted on the final stages of the Lords amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. We were then considering entitlement to compensation for unfair dismissal where someone is dismissed in certain circumstances. In this Bill we are concerned principally with action against someone short of dismissal in circumstances in which a closed shop will be formed.
Hon. Members will appreciate, however, that there have to be some limitations on the obligations which we place on ACAS to consider a whole series of claims for recognition on a number of different bases, and that is the reason for the additional provision which we now put before the House.

Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Amendments made to the Lords amendment: In line 16, leave out 'it' and insert:
'the Service has not declined to proceed on the reference under section 12 above, the union'.

In line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 53, in page 36, line 29, leave out "religous belief" and insert "conscience".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: We shall consider at the same time the Opposition amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out "conscience" and insert "deeply held personal conviction", and also the Government motion, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, to leave out "conscience" and insert "deeply held personal conviction".
Plainly, this amendment covers matters which have been frequently canvassed in the House, the most recent occasion being two weeks ago. This is a matter of great importance, and we make no apology for returning to the fray, if one may so put it. We do not believe that it is right that an employee who has objections on grounds of "deeply held personal conviction" to joining a trade union should be discriminated against merely because his objections are not on grounds of religious belief.
When this matter was dealt with in another place, the question of the insertion of the word "conscience" was considered and that word was inserted. However, we have suggested instead the insertion of the words "deeply held personal conviction", because considerable objection was taken to the use of the word "conscience". Rather than rehearse the arguments concerning the use of the word "conscience", we thought it better to pick a phrase which seemed to find some merit in the eyes of at least one noble Lord whose experience when he was a Member of this House was wholly on the Labour side. I am referring to Lord Houghton.
Lord Houghton favoured the phrase "deeply held personal conviction" as being a foundation for an entitlement not to be discriminated against if one did not wish to join a trade union. If Labour Members find the word "conscience" objectionable as a criterion, let us at least try the words "deeply held personal conviction". In view of recent events, we believe that it is all the more important that there should be a measure of protection for the individual who does not wish to join a trade union, not because of a reluctance to pay the subscription or be-

cause of some political view of an ephemeral kind but because of a fundamental belief that it is wrong to join an organisation of that kind. Let me hasten to add that no Opposition Member shares that belief, but it is a belief which many of us would fight passionately to allow other people to hold, exercise and enjoy.
Some hon. Members may have recently received a document concerning the situation in the railway industry in which there is to be an imposition on employees to join one of a number of unions unless they have objections on religious grounds. In that case "religious grounds" is circumscribed in an even narrower fashion than in the Bill as it stood unamended in their Lordships' House. The deep feeling of resentment aroused by an attempt to confine objections to trade union membership to religion is manifested in the document which many hon. Members have received from an organisation of people who feel strongly that they should be allowed not to join a trade union, not because they are members of a specific body, but because they have a deep and fundamental belief that membership of a trade union is not appropriate for them.
During the debate two weeks ago, one was pressed for an example of a genuinely deep-held personal belief which was not of a religious foundation. It was suggested that the conscience clause was inappropriate because anyone who had an objection, which was not simply political, to joining a trade union would surely have a religious objection. I gave an example, which I should like to repeat, of exactly the type of objection which would be not on grounds of religion but on grounds either of conscience or of "deeply held personal conviction". The example I gave was of someone who had been a member of the Plymouth Brethren, which is a recognised religious body, opposed to membership of trade unions and other comparable bodies on religious grounds. Let us consider someone who is a lapsed Plymouth Brother. I do not say that in a disrespectful way, because just as it is possible to be a lapsed member of any organisation so is it possible to be a lapsed Plymouth Brother. It is also possible, such is the strength of religious upbringing and training, that even if one no longer shares the basic tenets of the faith in


which one was brought up, one may have a residue of "deeply held personal conviction" traceable in origin to that religious faith but no longer held on a religious basis. It is quite possible for someone who has formerly belonged to a religous organisation which objects to membership of a trade union, to cease to be a member of that organisation and yet to continue to hold, as part of his residue inheritance from that religious faith, a "deeply held personal conviction" that it is wrong to be a member of a trade union. I have given only one example.
The Opposition do not particularly regard the words "deeply held personal conviction" as being any better than "conscience". We merely suggest those words as the alternative formula because they seem to be regarded as preferable by a Member of the other House who has had distinguished connections with the Labour movement—the former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and a holder of a number of other distinguished credentials which I need not repeat.
Where it was regarded as being objectionable for someone with a conscientious objection not to be allowed to absent himself from membership of a trade union, but where Labour supporters believed that the test of a "deeply held personal conviction" was sufficiently cogent, forceful and strong to entitle a person to absent himself, we feel that this latter formula should be acceptable. In that way, we would hope for more tolerance and liberality from the Government.
It may be said that it would be inconsistent to allow a person to absent himself from membership of a trade union on grounds of "deeply held personal conviction" for the purposes of Clause 45 of the Bill but to include in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill the provisions that were retained as a result of the decision of this House two weeks ago. If it is only consistency that worries Labour Members, I cannot imagine for one moment that, with their combined wit and ingenuity and the legislative forces of both Houses of Parliament, they would find it impossible to seek out a solution to the problem.
The issue we must face is one of principle. Should people who genuinely and

sincerely as a matter of "conscience" or "deeply held personal conviction" and who feel it wrong to join a union be compelled to do so? In my view the answer is "No". The only circumstances in which they should be compelled would be if it were impossible to apply the test or if it were a test which could not be followed in practice. I suggest that is not so.
We have had experience of conscientious objectors in time of war. Those cases have included many people whose objections to military service were on grounds not of religion but of conscience. Similarly, in the case of "deeply held personal conviction" courts of the realm have to test people's sincerity and to determine, difficult though it may be, whether they have an honestly held belief.
7.0 p.m.
It is a difficult but not impossible task. I believe that our commitment to freedom of conscience and of deeply held personal belief should be sufficiently great to risk the slight hazard that we may be imposing too difficult a burden upon a tribunal rather than too great a burden on the consciences or deeply held personal beliefs of those who may respect the trade union movement but regard membership of it as contrary to views which are fundamental to their sense of values.

Mr. Booth: First, I compliment the Opposition on finding yet another variation of words which could possibly be used in law to open up the exemption in closed shop agreements beyond the point of religious belief which the Government have consistently maintained in both this Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. I do not deny that this wording comes from an absolutely impeccable source. Therefore, I regret all the more that I find this form of wording no more acceptable to the Government as a statutory exception in the context of closed shop agreements between employers and unions than any of the previous 16 variations which have been considered.
I believe that a serious argument could be made on whether we should be consistent between one Act of Parliament and another on this matter. I do not want to rest on consistency, although there is an argument for it. Nor do I


want to dwell much on having, between exceptions and exclusions in actions short of dismissal, a difference in law which would not be made in cases for consideration under the unfair dismissal provisions.
It would not be right to accept that the effective operation of closed shop agreements, and the rights and obligations of employers, employees and unions involved in them, should be subject to a statutory qualification of those rights and obligations unless that qualification were clear and unambiguous.
The phrase "deeply held personal conviction" is no more immediately intelligible to persons other than the employee claiming to hold such convictions than is "conscience". I have made clear to this House that, important as conscience is, my personal view is that every individual is entitled to say that any precept, formula, belief or tenet, by which he judges whether an action is right or wrong, for him is a matter of conscience. I think that much the same considerations apply to "deeply held personal conviction". Who are we to judge whether it is right for any individual to hold some conviction deeply or not? If, as the formulation of the wording implies, it is a personal matter, it is not universally understood, and I put it to the House that it is not something upon which statutory rights and obligations can appropriately be made to depend.
The use of the phrase as a qualification of statutory rights and obligations regarding membership or non-membership of a union is not comparable to the way in which Labour Party members use the phrase in another connection. The Labour Party member who makes use of the words "deeply held personal conviction" already has loyalties to the party which he will not lightly disregard. This cannot be held to be the same as the reason for somebody not joining a union. I suggest that it is reasonable to expect that somebody who will not join a union is not likely to have any loyalties to that union. If he is not prepared to join a union, he will not have loyalties to the concept of trade unionism generally. What is equally, if not more, important is that we, as a House, are not entitled to assume that such a person feels no sense of loyalty to his fellow employees.

Mr. Madel: Is there not a practical difficulty here? The hon. Gentleman referred to loyalties to fellow employees. Where a company is moving to a closed shop agreement—I mentioned previously that Vauxhall's is doing that—and people who have not been members of a union have worked there for 15 to 20 years, one cannot say that they are not loyal to their fellow employees if a tolerable situation has existed year after year. The phrase "deeply held personal conviction" would help people who for many years have not been members of a union, and that situation has been understood and tolerated by members of the union in that factory. Is there not a practical difficulty here?

Mr. Booth: I accept that there is an important practical consideration here. I was saying that we, as a House, are not entitled to assume that. I do not deny that many people who are loyal to their fellow employees and feel themselves to be part of a team would not, on the ground of "deeply held personal conviction", wish to join a trade union. My argument is that in framing legislation on this matter we cannot make this assumption.
However, it is reasonable to assume that a person who refuses to join a trade union will not feel any sense of loyalty to the basis on which the union is formed. That is why we attach great importance to the formulation at which we have arrived, after long and careful discussion, for defining a union membership agreement. We recognise that people who have for many years worked in an amicable way with other employees should, and frequently are, excluded from closed shop agreements by the rest of their fellow workers. Some can be formed in ways which will not require existing employees to join as a condition of future employment within the company. We think these considerations are more effective in this connection.
For that reason, I urge the House to accept the amendment to the Lords amendment and, when the opportunity occurs, to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Greville Janner: I have a deeply held personal conviction that the Opposition are trying to find new words to produce an old result. They might say that my conviction is not


deeply held, but shallow. I should have great difficulty in proving what was meant by that. They might also say that it is not a personal conviction, because it is shared by everyone on this side of the House, and that it is not a conviction anyway, but a belief. That kind of argument would undoubtedly be cast from this House into every tribunal and court where this phrase would have to be interpreted. It is impossible to define. It is an open invitation to litigation. It is also an open invitation to the maverick to stay outside the union, reaping the benefits of what the union has achieved, while not having to contribute to it.
The phrase "deeply held personal conviction", being impossible of proper legal definition, leading only to trouble and intended to interfere as much as possible with the closed shop principle, should be totally rejected.

Mr. Hayhoe: We return to the issue of the closed shop which has run through many of our discussions over the years, but a new factor has entered into these discussions in the last week or two—namely, that, at a time of rising unemployment, people are now being sacked because, for one reason or another, they are unwilling to conform to the requirements of closed shop union membership agreements. I believe we may see the number of examples of people being sacked rising in the coming months. There have been instances in various parts of the country. Ferry-bridge has been much in the news, but there are also reports from British Leyland, indications in British Rail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has mentioned the closed shop at Vauxhall's. No doubt other hon. Members will know from constituency experience of other circumstances in which, as a result of pressure from fellow workers and trade unionists, some people are being deprived of their livelihood. They may not be able to find comparable jobs.
I have no sympathy with the free riders who seek the benefits of negotiations undertaken by unions but are too mean to pay the price of a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes each week for their union dues. I have always made clear that we are not motivated by any desire to change the law to protect the free rider, but we believe that the law being pushed through by the Government does

not have adequate safeguards for individuals with profound, deeply held and sincere convictions.
I do not think the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) added much to our debate. He objected to the wording in the amendment to the Lords amendment and said that it would not stand up very well. If I had to choose between his advice and the words of Lord Houghton in another place I know where my vote would go. Lord Houghton was a union leader for many years and a highly respected figure. In the 1970 to 1974 Parliament he was the Labour Opposition spokesman on industrial affairs, and he speaks with very great authority in these matters. We would be unwise to shrug off lightly the advice he gave in another place and the suggestion he made that wording along the lines of this amendment might provide the solution to the problem which has plagued us for a long time.
I am searching all the time for a formula to get us as close as possible to voluntary 100 per cent. membership of trade unions. When I was active in my own branch of a trade union I and most of my fellow workers abhorred the thought that we might need a measure of compulsion or threat to get someone dismissed in order to persuade him to join our branch. We were prepared to accept that occasionally there would be an awkward cuss, but we thought the evil of compulsion was even greater than difficulties which arise from one or two awkward people not joining their fellow workers in the work of a union branch.
I am prepared to accept union membership agreements providing there are adequate safeguards for the individual. This was the position adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) in the Second Reading debate on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill in the last Parliament. We have held consistently to that view since then. We have tried to find the right formula for adequate safeguards.
There are very few people, apart from hon. Members opposite, who would argue that religious belief has any merit as a ground for exception other than its extreme narrowness and simplicity of ad-administration. Difficulty of administration is used as an argument against any


other form of words which, to the layman, seem to provide adequate safeguards. How tyranny can come because of the ease of administration! Should we not be seeking ways to protect the freedom of the individual?
7.15 p.m.
Conscience would be a better ground for exception than religious belief. We know that conscience has aroused much argument in the past, but we sought, by picking up the words used by Lord Houghton in another place, to find a formulation which could command the support of a substantial number of hon. Members in this House. I find it very sad that there has not been a single voice raised from the Government benches to go outside this very narrow confine of religious belief. Our vote tonight will not be the end of this matter. Public interest will grow as the number of people being sacked increases and the hard cases become known to hon. Members. There will be a growing feeling that something is wrong with the safeguards we have built into this legislation.
The Minister of State did not make much of the argument that the amendment deals only with measures short of dismissal. I acknowledge his good sense in not seeking to base his argument on that narrow point. If we decided these words were appropriate, ways could be found by the magic of procedures in another place, perhaps even before the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill leaves there, to put the matter right. We should not deal with this matter on the grounds of inconsistency of action involved in everything short of dismissal and action which would lead to dismissal, which is the subject of the Bill in another place.
Individuals who have worked in an industry for many years and been accepted as loyal and reasonable members of the work force risk being faced with closed shop agreements which would not have the exceptions referred to by the Minister of State. I know that agreements have taken account of individuals who have worked for a firm for some time, and have not sought to compel them to conform, applying the closed shop agreement only to people coming new into the industry.
I sense a growing intolerance among some unionists, particularly their leaders,

because it is the leaders who are so often involved in these matters when emotions run high. Hon. Members should not think that it is because of a great demand growing from the grass roots. I sense a growing intolerance, and I am sorry that everything that is being done by the Secretary of State and his Ministers is, if anything, serving to accentuate that intolerance. Once more we have the opportunity to vote in favour of a more tolerant and reasonable approach to this matter. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will take that opportunity.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 266.

Division No. 373.]
AYES
[5.59 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Conlan, Bernard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Corbett, Robin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crawford, Douglas


Bates, Alt
Campbell, Ian
Crawshaw, Richard


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Cronin, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John
Daiyell, Tam


Boardman, H.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davidson, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric




Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, Hugh
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Ennals, David
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacCormick, Iain
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett), W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thompson, George


Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John
Tomlinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hatton, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Henderson, Douglas
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Horam, John
Newens. Stanley
Watt, Hamish


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
Wigley, Dafydd


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Hamilton.


Lambie, David
Roper, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, John
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Michael
Biggs-Davlson, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Awdry, Daniel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Bulmer, Esmond


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beith, A. J.
Brittan, Leon
Carlisle, Mark




Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Raison, Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Chennon, Paul
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cockcroft, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cops, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Freud, Clement
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Peter
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Stokes, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Harrison, Col Sir Herwood (Eye)
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wall, Patrick


Havers, Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walters, Dennis


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hayhoe, Barney
Pardoe, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Higgins, Terence L.
Penhaligon, David
Younger, Hon George


Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian



Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Richard Luce.


Hurd, Douglas

[For Division List 374 see col 1771.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth.]

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 212.

[For Division List 375 see col. 1775.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 57

PAYMENT OF UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME

Consequential amendment made: In page 48, line 13, after 'pay', insert 'maternity pay'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry.]

Clause 104

AMENDMENTS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974

Lords Amendment: No. 121, in page 87, line 13, leave out from "which" to "remove" in line 15.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will recognise that this is familiar territory. The last time we discussed this basic proposition I said that we had been round the course so often that I was beginning to feel dizzy. Yet here we are again. The arguments are


so familiar. The positions which both sides take have been so clearly stated on so many occasions that it would be superfluous to rehearse the matter again. If Conservative Members wish to produce any new arguments I will, with the leave of the House, seek to reply to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we may also discuss Lords Amendment No. 177, in Schedule 14, page 148, line 17, leave out paragraphs 2 to 7.

Mr. Madel: I guessed that the Minister would say only a few words on this subject. As he says, we have been round this course many times. He said that he was prepared to deal with any fresh arguments if they were advanced. I suggest that there are such arguments, since we are now told by the Government that they are anxious to legislate in the 1976–77 Session on the whole question of industrial participation.
By having this debate we are, in a sense, lifting the curtain on this wider issue. I hope that the Minister will understand that those of us who serve in Committee on the Industrial Democracy Bill are beginning to feel that we were fobbed off when the Government said that they would set up a committee pretty quickly to examine the whole matter. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) challenged the Secretary of State on when the chairman of the committee of inquiry into industrial democracy and the members of the committee will be announced. He received no answer as to who these people will be and when their appointments will be announced.
The Government are being mildly optimistic if they believe that they can get the inquiry to do its work and to report, and be in a position to put the Bill before the House in the 1976–77 Session. That is optimistic, and unlikely to happen, but if it does happen we shall be getting off to a bad start. In our view there will not have been sufficient consultation and discussion before the Government come out with the Bill.
The question of safety representatives and the election of safety representatives from amongst employees touches on the wider debate on industrial participation.

Many times the Government say in the House and outside that it is impossible to carry policies, and to carry the country with the Government, unless the Government have the assent of working people. By that, we assume that the Government are including the 10½ million people who choose not to belong to trade unions. There is nothing sinister in that. We went through the conscience debate only a few minutes ago. It is a fact of industrial life that there are many people who choose not to belong to a trade union.
When the Government say that the trade unions are by far the best organisations to represent people on safety committees and to decide who shall be their representatives we would say that if that be the case it should be an incentive for the trade unions to go on a great recruiting drive to get more people to join their ranks so that there will not be the argument between trade union members and non-unionists as to who should represent employees on safety committees.
On 5th August the Under-Secretary of State raised three matters. The Opposition did not respond to them on that occasion because we suspected that those in another place would amend the Bill as it has now been amended. Firstly, the Under-Secretary said that the Government believed that safety representatives should be appointed by the trade unions. We would say to that that the Govern-men must surely accept that other people must be brought into the matter of health and safety at work.
Secondly, the Minister said that when appointed the representatives will need the special facility of an organisation such as a trade union. That is all right as far as it goes, but there may be factories and organisations where the existing facilities and consultative arrangements between the managers and the unions, and the managers and the people who are not members of a union, are equally good as those that may be provided by a trade union.
Thirdly, the Minister said that if the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act were amended the result would be that all kinds of spurious organisations would use the provisions of Section 2(5) as a sidewind to gain recognition.
That is not the case. We have carefully considered how ACAS will view the matter of recognition of a union. We have been assured that frivolous representations to ACAS will not be considered. I would have thought that ACAS's inquiry procedure into recognition issues will follow the line that the Minister set out on 5th August.
Finally, there is the wider issue of industrial democracy. We all hope that the experiment at British Leyland will be successful. In today's Financial Times there is a long article on industrial democracy. It points out that specific references are also to be made on subjects such as health and safety. I draw the Minister's attention to two points in the article. I ask him to think about them before finally asking the House to reject the amendment. The system that has been designed in British Leyland, as the article says,
virtually guarantees that the 'big name' shop stewards—such as Mr. Eddie McGarry, the leading TGWU stewards at Triumph in Coventry, and Mr. Derek Robinson, the AUEW senior steward at Long bridge, will emerge on the top committee. This is causing some resentment among some of the workforce who feel that industrial democracy should be based on all the workers deciding who should represent them.
That is a note of caution that the Government should think about. It may be that there will be no argument about the two people I have mentioned being the leading lights and eventually being the people who will go on the British Leyland board as the worker representatives, but the article underlines the need to ensure that all the work force is represented. We argue that all the work force should feel represented on health and safety committees.
The article refers to the compromise over elections. The eventual compromise was that there should be constituencies. That means that each car plant will be divided between eight and 15 constituencies. There will be elections only when two shop stewards fail to agree amongst themselves on who should go forward. That will give the larger unions immense power. Provision is also made for fallback elections when major dissent builds up. Those provisions seek to avoid dissent over the issue of health and safety at work.
We hope that the amendment will not be dismissed. It seeks to ensure that the work force, including the non-unionised, will feel that they are playing a part in health and safety matters. The Minister says that we have been round this track many times, but I urge the Government not to proceed on the course that they appear to have selected.
They have to decide, when the inquiry into industrial democracy has completed its work, whether it will be trade-union appointed people who serve on the new committees or whether the representatives will be elected from the whole work force. The article in today's Financial Times sounds a note of caution as regards British Leyland. I hope that the Government will proceed on the matter of industrial democracy with an open mind. It is because we have an open mind on the vital matter of health and safety committees that we hope the amendment will be carried.
I have heard the Minister say many times how he wants to reduce accidents, how he wants everyone to feel involved in health and safety, and how pleased he was as Minister to bring the Robens recommendations into law. Surely we should be totally certain that all employees will be covered and will feel part of the system of health and safety committees. It is for those reasons, and because we want to be cautious about industrial democracy and ensure that everyone feels involved, that we disagree with the line that the Government are taking.

Mr. Harold Walker: It would be discourteous of me not to make some response to the points put forward by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). I recognise the persistency and the consistency with which he has followed the proposition he has put to the House. I shall not seek to repeat the arguments that he quoted from my speech. They are still valid arguments, notwithstanding what he has said about the article in the Financial Times and the resentment that is felt by workers at British Leyland at what is proposed. I have not read the article, and I am not familiar with what is going on there in exact terms. I shall read the article.
I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said shakes the arguments


that we have presented, bearing in mind the overriding reasons for our clinging to the position that we have adopted. We believe that to proceed in any other way would lead to industrial relations problems. I stress once again that there is nothing in the position that we have adopted that prevents any employer in a non-unionised situation from entering into any arrangement—this applies to the work people as well—that is felt to be appropriate in providing for the appointment of safety representatives and the establishment of safety committees. I can see nothing that upsets any existing arrangements.
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the detailed way in which the provisions will be made are to be embodied in regulations. The Commission is charged with the responsibility of drafting the regulations. During the period of uncertainty since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act received the Royal Assent the progress we all hoped to see in the producing of the regulations has been inhibited.
Eventually the Commission decided that the sensible way to proceed would be to take account of the Government's clear intentions and to prepare draft regulations. Those regulations will be published shortly and will be subject to consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully examine the draft regulations. He may feel it appropriate to make submissions which may influence their final form. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said and appreciate his persistence. However, I cannot take any other course than to suggest that the House should seek to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe: I well remember the Under-Secretary of State, in an earlier debate, quoting as an authority on these matters—although not on this issue—the distinguished correspondent of The Times, Eric Wig ham. The Minister should be reminded of Mr. Wigham's views on these proposals. He said, in a recent article:
Even more unreasonable was the Bill's proposal to amend the Health and Safety at Work Act to restrict the appointment of workers' safety representatives to those appointed by recognised trade unions, and the Lords have removed this restriction.

In other words, he was saying these proposals constitute a flaw in an otherwise useful piece of legislation.
I am sorry that the Minister persists in his misguided, highly dogmatic and partisan approach to this question. I regret that he has not paid more attention to the writings of a man to whom, in the past, he has accorded such praise. If the Government persist in trying to delete the Lords amendment, it will be necessary once again to divide the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 215.

[For Division List 376 see col. 1779.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 122, in page 87, line 15, leave out
remove the special provisions relating to health and safety at work in agriculture and".

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it is proposed to take part of Amendment 177 and the following amendments:

No. 176, in page 148, line 15, leave out paragraph 1.

No. 178, in page 149, line 1, leave out paragraphs 9 to 20.

No. 179, in page 150, line 27, at end insert—
. It shall be the duty of the Commission to submit to the Secretary of State and to Agriculture Ministers at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, reports as to the operation of the Act in its application to the relevant agricultural purposes, having regard to the general purposes of Part I; and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland shall cause any such report to be included in the next respective reports to Parliament under Section 29.

Mr. Walker: As in the case of the last amendment, we have been over this ground several times and the House is familiar with the issues involved. It is familiar with the arguments that have been deployed on both sides of the issue, and both sides quite clearly know where


they stand. It would be superfluous of me to reiterate the arguments used so frequently in the past.
If any hon. Member wishes to raise any new matter to which the House may feel it appropriate for me to respond, with permission I shall seek to do so. I think that the House should proceed as quickly as possible.
I notice that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is waving the blue briefing that he has had from the National Farmers' Union and perhaps wants to use all its arguments. I assure him that I have read it carefully word for word, but I doubt whether hon. Members have all read it with the same eager avidity. I am familiar with the arguments. There is nothing new in them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deploy them, it is a matter for him and the House.
I suggest that the sensible course is for the House to reach a final decision on these matters relating to the health and safety of agricultural workers.

Mr. Madel: As the Minister has said, we have been round this argument a great many times. I am sure that we all start from the position that we want to improve safety in farms throughout the country. The point at issue between us tonight, as in previous debates, is a purely administrative one; whether the Ministry of Agriculture or the Health and Safety Commission should be ultimately responsible for ensuring that safety is given the highest priority on our farms.
The Minister will remember that in Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) put forward a compromise plan, bearing in mind that we are in the middle of National Farm Safety Year. In his plan my right hon. Friend suggested that safety matters specific to agriculture and forestry should be subject to some form of inspection by the Health and Safety Commission every five years. We are not rigid as to time and we would be perfectly willing for it to be three-yearly. I hope that the Government may say something about that compromise plan, because we left the matter without dividing the House

and without a full answer from the Minister.
There is also the fact that 31 additional full-time agricultural safety officers are being appointed, in addition to which the Minister has often said that there is total unanimity, in unions affiliated to the TUC, concerning what the Government want to do. I am sure the Minister knows that the Society of Civil Servants, which is affiliated to the TUC, is not happy about the change that the Government want to make, and wants to transfer responsibility for farm safety to the Health and Safety Commission.
All that we would say, in our usual flexible and understanding way from these benches, is that we ought to see how the Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture work together. If what the Ministry of Agriculture is doing is unsatisfactory the Commission can censure it, as the Minister knows. We can then have a full debate and the Government can make rapid alterations.
The Government always give the impression of being in a great rush, and that is one of our objections to many things in the Bill. Let us see how we go. If the Ministry of Agriculture is shown to be falling down in this vital job of making sure that safety has the highest priority on farms, we shall agree with the Government in making the change. We put forward a fair and reasonable compromise plan on 17th July, and we hope that the Government will accept it. If the arrangement proves to be unsatisfactory we shall agree with the Government making a change, but at least we feel that time should be given to see how it works out.

Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 249. Noes, 228.

[For Division List 377 see col. 1783.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION TO PARLIAMENTARY STAFF

Lords Amendment: No. 135, after Clause 109, in page 94, line 28, insert the following new clause:
.—(1) The provisions of this Act, Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 and Parts I and II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act shall apply to relevant members of House of Commons staff as they apply to persons in Crown employment within the meaning of section 109 above, and accordingly for the purposes of the application of those provisions in relation to any such members—

(a) any reference to an employee shall be construed as a reference to any such member;
(b) any reference to a contract of employment shall be construed as a reference to the terms of employment of any such member;
(c) any reference to dismissal shall be construed as a reference to the termination of any such member's employment;
(d) the references in paragraph 21(5)(c) of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act and section 18(l)(e) above to any person's undertaking or any undertaking in which he works shall be construed as a reference to the national interest or, if the case so requires, the interests of the House of Commons; and
(e) any other reference to an undertaking shall be construed as a reference to the House of Commons.

(2) The provisions of section 1 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Parts II and IV of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall apply to an act done by an employer of a relevant member of House of Commons staff and to service as such a member as they apply to an act done by, and to service for the purposes of, a Minister of the Crown or Government department, and accordingly shall so apply as if references in those provisions to a contract of employment included references to the terms of service of such a member.
(3) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament shall prevent proceedings under any enactment applied by subsection (1) or (2) above being instituted before an industrial tribunal.
(4) In this section "relevant member of House of Commons staff" means any person employed in or for the purposes of the House of Commons as follows:—

(a) in the Department of the Clerk of that House;
(b) in Mr. Speaker's Department;
(c) in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms;
(d) in the Department of the Library;
(e) in the administration department;
(f) in the refreshment department.


(5) It is hereby declared that in this section "relevant member of House of Commons staff" does not include the Clerk of that House or any Clerk Assistant or the Serjeant at Arms of that House.
(6) For the purposes of the enactments applied by subsection (1) and (2) above, Mr. Speaker shall be deemed to be the employer of House of Commons staff, except that in relation to any description of members of the staff for the time being designated by Mr. Speaker a person so designated shall be deemed to be the employer of members of that description for those purposes or, if it is so stated in the designation, such of those purposes as are so designated.
(7) Where any proceedings are brought by virtue of this section against Mr. Speaker or any person designated under subsection (6) above, the person against whom the proceedings are brought may apply to the industrial tribunal to have some other person against whom the proceedings could have been properly brought so substituted for him as a party to those proceedings.
(8) If the House of Commons resolves at any time that any provision of subsections (4) to (6) above should be amended in its application to any member of the staff of that House, Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend that provision accordingly.
(9) It is hereby declared that the powers of nominating or appointing and suspending or removing members of House of Commons staff conferred by sections 14 and 15 of the House of Commons (Offices) Act 1812 (clerks, attendants and messengers) and the power of Mr. Speaker to require the suspension or removal of any such member conferred by section 16 of that Act are exercisable subject to the provisions of the enactments applied by subsections (1) and (2) above to such members.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 136, 213 and 236. I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in these amendments.

Mr. Booth: Although I share everyone's anxiety that we should treat the Bill with great expedition, it is important that I should make some explanation of the developments on this matter since we sent it to another place.
The new clause and the three amendments associated with it seek to apply the provisions of the Bill and other employment legislation to the staff of the House to the same extent that they already apply to civil servants.
Subsections (4) and (5) define the staff to be covered in the five Departments of the House, together with the refreshment staff. Office holders such as the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant at Arms are excluded. Under subsections (6) and (7), Mr. Speaker is deemed to be the employer for the purposes of legislation, but he may delegate his responsibilities to others at his discretion. Subsection (8) enables these provisions to be varied by Order in Council at any time if the House so resolves.
On Report, on 30th July, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) moved an amendment with the same objective as the present clause to cover staffs in both Houses. It was clear from the debate on that amendment that many hon. Members sympathised with its purpose. I promised that the Government would give the matter further consideration with a view to ensuring that suitable arrangements were made before the Bill became law. On the strength of that undertaking, my hon. Friend withdrew his amendment. The new clause carries out for House of Commons staff the wish that hon. Members then expressed that the legislation should be applied to parliamentary staff in a suitable way.
The clause goes further. It not only makes statutory provision for the application of the provisions of the Employment Protection Bill; it also applies the unfair dismissal provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Bill. It defines the employment rights of the staff concerned and extends to them the same statutory protection as is already enjoyed by Crown employees. It does not deal with the application of health and safety legislation. The reason is that this raises more complex issues, which will be examined in consultation with the House authorities and the Health and Safety Commission.
It may be suggested that action of this kind should wait until the House has considered the recommendations of the Bottomley Report, as these may well result in changes in the organisation and structure of the House. However, the Government believe that it is right to take the opportunity which the Bill provides rather than wait until some later date. Moreover, subsection (8) of the

new clause provides the necessary flexibility and enables any future changes to be taken into account.
We have consulted Mr. Speaker about the proposals and he sees no objection to them, so far as his own responsibilities are concerned. The clause covers House of Commons staff only. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has informed me that the question of applying the legislation to staff of the House of Lords has been considered by the House of Lords Offices Committee and that, although the committee fully agrees that the benefits of the legislation should be made available to House of Lords staff on the same basis as they are made available to civil servants, it prefers, at least at this stage, to rest on the undertaking which has already been given in another place that the legislation should be applied by analogy.
The suggestion was made in another place that it would be better not to include in the Bill any provision about parliamentary staff, but to deal with the matter by means of separate legislation next Session, perhaps in an enabling Bill which would make it possible for each House to apply employment legislation to its own staff by resolution, as it saw fit.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal promised that the Government would consider this suggestion. We have done so, but our conclusion is that it would be better to go ahead with the present amendment, which will enable the position of the House of Commons staff to be dealt with immediately. After full consultation with House authorities we are satisfied that this represents a practical way of overcoming the legal difficulties and of meeting the wishes both of this House and of the staff. There is no good reason for postponing this desirable step until next Session when, with the best will in the world, we could not be sure that the necessary parliamentary time would be easily found. I therefore commend the new clause, with its associated amendments, to the House

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I am pleased to have moved an amendment on Report which would have had the same effect as the one which the Minister of State is now moving.


However, the House of Lords has failed in two respects. First, this provision does not apply to its staff. I see no reason why the longstanding abuse and anomaly of failure to apply legislation to employees of this House should not also have been rectified with regard to House of Lords employees.
When this matter was dealt with in the House of Lords, Lord Shepherd said that the amendment came within the procedure of this House and recommended the amendment to the House of Lords in these terms:
I commend this Amendment not in any way in terms of its content, but because in the circumstances I have mentioned it provides another place with the opportunity to decide what it should do in regard to its own staff. I hope the House will feel that this is a matter which should be left with the House of Commons.
The noble Lord then went on to say, with regard to the House of Lords,
I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment as a procedural device in order to allow the House of Commons to decide its own relationship with its own people."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23rd October 1975; c. 1661–62.]
It seems to me highly unsatisfactory that the House of Lords should have autonomy in deciding upon employment matters in this respect, or even that this House should have it. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister—everyone will wish to congratulate him on his tenacity in this matter—to seek a formula whereby all legislation which protects employees automatically applies to employees of this House and employees of the House of Lords. It seems quite monstrous that one should be penalised by reason of working for the legislature which passes legislation protecting employees. Therefore, what applies to the House of Commons ought also to apply to the House of Lords, and ought to be applied generally, so that one may deal with matters such as the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and the general health, welfare and safety legislation.
Having said that, however, I think that it would be very churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Government have overcome a very difficult legal drafting problem. They have done everything in their power, between the Report stage and the Bill going into the House of Lords, to see that the wishes of this

House were given effect to and that employees of this House should be treated in the same way as civil servants generally. I am sure that I express the gratitude not only of hon. Members but of those who will benefit from this legislation. However, I hope that it will be a precedent for something wider—namely, a recognition that employees of this House should not be penalised or treated in any way differently because they are employees here, and the more so in regard to the House of Lords.
Perhaps it is a reflection on the other place that they should request or demand the right to decide the conditions of employment for their employees rather than allow them to be a matter for legislation generally, as if they were some sort of private club. This is a matter which ought not to go by without some protest, and without Members of the other place knowing that some of us object to their legislating at all.

Mr. Brittan: I think that all hon. Members would agree in the common aim, which is to ensure that those employed in this House enjoy the protection of legislation of the kind we have been discussing in the same way as do people employed elsewhere. I take this opportunity of welcoming the fact that a way has been found of ensuring that just that happens.
It would be wrong to underestimate the difficulty in dealing with a complex legal problem of this kind. It is very gratifying that it has been overcome to the extent that it has. It is a little churlish to condemn Members of another place for what they have or have not done in relation to their own affairs, particularly when one must take into account the fact that we would not be able to debate at this stage the matters we are debating now were it not for the existence of the other place and their Lordships' assistance in bringing into existence the very matter that we are debating.
This is not, therefore, an occasion for acrimony between the two Houses; it is, rather, an occasion for gratitude that we have been able to solve, or seem to have solved, a knotty problem. No doubt Labour Members will note the fact that it is expected that the other place will operate by way of analogy. I think that we should be content with that at present,


and should certainly welcome the passage, in this House, of the amendments relating to the staff employed here.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry.]

Schedule 11

EXTENSION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 161, in page 141, line 11, after "conditions" insert "substantially less favourable than".

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be that, where there were no recognised terms and conditions, claims for improvements under the provisions of Part I of Schedule 11 would be limited to those cases in which the terms and conditions were substantially less favourable than the general level.
There are three serious objections to this Lords amendment. The first is that to introduce the word "substantially" in this context creates considerable uncertainty. At best, what would be a substantial difference in terms and conditions as between one establishment and another is a matter of judgment, and it could be a matter of considerable argument. That would not, I think, matter to a great extent were we not providing, within Schedule 11, a means of redress which, in the final analysis, will cause terms and conditions to be settled by the Central Arbitration Committee.
What we hope to achieve by Part I of the schedule is a general observance of the aims of the Bill, just as the House did many years ago when it passed the fair wages resolution in the hope that those employers who received Government contracts would, without any legal machinery being brought to bear, ensure that their employees were employed on fair terms and conditions.
Therefore, to introduce into this part of the Bill a substantial degree of doubt may well result in many more rather than fewer cases going to the Central Arbitration Committee. Thus, instead of having provided a means of influencing matters

in the way we wish them to go, we should have opened up a means of creating a large area open to litigation—using that term in its broad sense.
The second objection is that under paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 the Central Arbitration Committee has to take a broad view when it compares wages, terms and conditions in an establishment with the general level in the district. I am sure that hon. Members who have studied these matters will agree that a comparison of that kind may, in the absence of the term "substantially", as proposed in the Lords amendment, result in the CAC's taking the view that although the wages difference on which a claim is based would show a small but significant basis, other terms and conditions attached to the establishment are substantially better, and therefore, taking a general and broad view, turning down a claim.
On the other hand, they may observe a small wages gap in circumstances in which the other terms and conditions are substantially worse. On a general broad view they would say that the terms and conditions were worse, and they would make the award even though it was based on the wages element. However, to have to show that there is a substantial difference in the elements which one is claiming could militate against that form of consideration which the House decided to leave within the provisions of Schedule 11.
My third objection is that this would create criteria for claims under the provisions of Part I of Schedule 11 different from those which exist under the Fair Wages Resolution. As the broad aim of Part I of Schedule 11 is to establish on a much wider basis the same sort of criteria as apply to the Fair Wages Resolution, we would be establishing in areas which do not have access to the Fair Wages Resolution a lower standard than the House agreed 30 years ago should apply in the Fair Wages Resolution area.
For those reasons I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Hayhoe: This matter has been discussed in Committee, on Report, and in another place. During the debates there has been at least some meeting of minds about the problem for which we have


sought to find a solution in the wording that we have, from time to time, suggested.
The words which appear in the Lords amendment are similar to those which I moved on Report. One has always accepted that those words alone could not totally satisfy the point that one has in mind. However, we pushed them to Divisions, on the basis that this was a way of indicating to the Government that we hoped that they would try to find ways of achieving the objective on this part of the schedule, which deals with pockets where the conditions and wages are lower than those which normally apply, without carrying with it other disadvantages which would flow if these provisions led to leapfrogging in pursuit of an average which is always moving farther away. The act of moving towards the average ensures that it moves on. Therefore, one is continually pushing an ever-receding or an ever-advancing average.
The problem arises in the way that the legislation could be used. I suggested in our last debate that the white-collar unions might take a view about the way in which to use the Fair Wages Resolution approach which was different from that which has been taken by other unions during the 30 years' existence of the resolution. It has not been brought into effect on more than a few occasions during those years. However, its existence has probably had a general effect upon the wages and conditions of those concerned.
We are disappointed that the Government have not been able to find a way of drafting into the legislation words which will meet the fears which we have expressed and which I know the Government understand are held by people outside the House who have followed these debates with great care.
We are sorry that apparently there has been no way open to the Government to meet these fears and objections. We are moving towards the position that the words will remain unamended. We hope that the fears we have expressed in the past will not materialise. Time will tell.

We hope that the schedule will not lead to an inflationary spiral. Having quoted Mr. Wigram earlier, I should indicate that his view all along was that our fears were unfounded, but other distinguished commentators took a different view. Therefore, the advice which has been forthcoming on this problem—presumably to the Government as well as to the Opposition—has been somewhat ambivalent.
We have sought to express the fears of those who saw these provisions giving an extra twist to the inflationary spiral. The Government have pooh-poohed those fears and said that that will not happen. Time will show who is right.
We have always accepted that the wording of the amendment was symbolic to get across what we had in mind and that it was not proper legal drafting or a watertight arrangement which could ensure that it would come about. It would be wrong for us to divide the House to hold to this Lords amendment. Therefore, we accept that the Government's will should run in this matter and that this House should disagree with the Lords amendment. We hope that our fears about the possible consequences will be shown to be groundless.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with special Entry.]

Schedule 14

AMENDMENTS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT, 1974

Lords Amendment: No. 176, in page 148, line 15, leave out paragraph 1.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 15

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 200, in page 167, line 8 at end insert:

"10A. After paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 (dismissal in closed
shop situation), insert the following sub-paragraphs:—


5
"(5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) above aunion shall be treated as specified for the purposes of or in relation to a union membership agreement (in a case where it would not otherwise be so treated) if—


10
(a) the Service has made a recommendation for recognitioncovering the employee in question which is operative within the meaning of section 15 of the Employment Protection Act 1975; or


15
(b) subject to sub-paragraph (5B) below the union has referred a recognition issue (within the meaning of that Act) covering that employee to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service under section11 of that Act and it has not withdrawn the reference, or from the reference, and the issue has not been settled or reported on under section 12 of that Act"


20
(5B) Sub-paragraph (5A)(b) above shall not apply where the reference is such a reference as is described in section 12(2) of that Act (reference of issue previously considered by the Service) on which, in accordance with that subsection the Service declines to proceed."

Read a Second time.

9.0 p.m.

Amendments to the Lord amendment made: in line 3, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.

In line 12, leave out
'subject to sub-paragraph (5B) below'.

In line 16, leave out 'it' and insert
'the Service has not declined to proceed on the reference under section 12 of that Act, the union'.

In line 18, leave out from 'under' to end of line 24 and insert 'that section.'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 226, in page 184, line 36, at end insert "8,".

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 227 to 230.

Mr. Hayhoe: Going through so many amendments formally seemed so much like an auction that I felt I had better intervene before the jackpot was reached on Lords Amendment No. 226, after which we shall have almost concluded our consideration of the Lords amendments.
We have reached the point where we shall have considered 230 Lords amendments and agreed to 209 of them. The Bill was substantially improved in another place. Very important amendments have been made, some of them in response to suggestions which emanated from this House. Generally speaking, the Bill is much better even without the Lords amendments which we have deleted from it. It would have been an even better Bill if some of the 21 amendments which we disagreed to had been left intact.
This might be the last opportunity of commenting on the Bill, although one must not presume to prejudge what another place might do. There still remains an opportunity for the Bill to return to this House for further consideration. It may be opportune now, however, to express our gratitude to those who have


answered the many points and queries which have been raised and to those who have advised the Ministers. We have not always been happy with what Ministers have said, but on those occasions I am sure they must have been acting wholly within their own responsibility and ignoring the advice of their officials. We are grateful to all concerned.

Mr. Booth: I concur completely with the last remarks by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). Wherever I have given offence to the Opposition, it has been entirely my fault. We are indebted to our officials for their advice and to the many other people we have consulted, many of whom realise how important this legislation is in many aspects of industry. I pay tribute to the Opposition here and to another place, where efforts were made to improve the Bill. It would be very strange if a Bill with such wide scope and range dealing with so many detailed matters had not been capable of considerable improvement.
Some of our debates have shown up the very real differences of opinion which exist. Running through the debates has been a theme which demonstrates the need which we hope the Bill will meet for dealing with many matters affecting the way in which millions of people are employed. I therefore support the remarks by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and I include him in my tribute to those who have sought to improve the Bill.
I extend my thanks to the staff of my Department, who have been worked off their feet in dealing with queries which have arisen on the Bill. We are only too conscious of the tremendous job they do in helping to bring forward legislation such as this. Right hon. and hon. Members may naturally complain at the long nights and difficult Committee stage, but coming as I have done fairly recently to the Department of Employment I have realised just how much work is involved for other people to whom the House should be grateful.
Before we move on to the last of the amendments, perhaps we should acknowledge that we are the servants of a great many people in what we are seeking to do in this legislation. The extent to which we shall have been successful will

depend not entirely on what we do but also on the way in which they seek to put the Bill into practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. David Madel, and Mr. Harold Walker.

To withdraw immediately.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Booth.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

EXPENDITURE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November relating to nomination of Members of the Expenditure Committee, Mr. Keith Stainton be discharged from the Committee and Mr. George Gardiner be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Dormand.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

MOBILITY AND HEALTH ALLOWANCES

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of mobility and health allowances.
One of my interests over a number of years has been the many problems of the disabled. I am sure that it is also an interest of many hon. Members. In particular I have worked on committees concerned with the employment of the disabled and the compilation of registers of disabled people who want to work.


My interest and activity have widened since I took on my constituency responsibilities, because in my constituency there are a Remploy industrial unit, a National Spastics Society factory and a hostel for spastics accommodating about 77 people. The Department of Health and Social Security agency which repairs, maintains and adapts the vehicles used by the disabled is also located in my constituency.
Apart from being in contact with many disabled groups, many of us know a number of individuals who are disabled. Therefore, I speak not as a sort of instant expert—one who often lectures in the Press—but as a person who tries to start from practical experience and concern. Any contribution that I can make is made on the basis of what I learn from the disabled people whom I know and try to understand.
When any new social services allowances are agreed and implemented by the Government, the greatest problem appears to be to find the beneficiaries. Many are unaware that they qualify, and communications still need to be improved.
There is no doubt that it is difficult to find those who have qualified for health allowances, and I am sure that it will be no easier to find all the 100,000 disabled people who will qualify for the mobility allowances beginning in January next. It is hoped to complete that task by March 1979.
While it is not so difficult to discuss these matters with groups of the disabled where they meet together, it is no easy matter to find the disabled person who is cut off from his friends—probably isolated within four walls. This has always been a difficult problem to overcome, and much time and energy has been spent by voluntary organisations, Members of Parliament, and others, in seeking ways and means of overcoming the difficulty. I make no apology for mentioning again that the appointment of a Minister for the Disabled by the Prime Minister was an enlightened and progressive act. More is now being done for disabled people than ever before. The Minister is making tremendous progress in co-ordinating the employment, educational, housing, social and mobility needs of the disabled.
We can see this co-ordination going on through more financial support for voluntary bodies. There has been more fin-

ance for the study of aids to daily living for the disabled, including those relating to their housing needs. I welcome also the innovation of zero rating, for VAT purposes, of aids and appliances. There is also research into medical equipment for the disabled. I could spend my allocated time and more discussing ways and means of finding those who qualify for the new health allowances—all made possible by this Labour Government—such as the invalid care allowance for the stay-at-home daughter, the psychiatric patient's pocket money scheme, the new disability pension for workers deafened by noise at their place of employment, the increases in blind person's tax allowances, and the many other benefits brought in since March 1974 to improve the welfare and status of disabled people.
I want to concentrate on the new mobility allowance which operates from January 1976 because I regard this as the most important of all the new benefits. I want to do to two things. First, I wish to elicit more information from my hon. Friend about the detail and time sequence of the new mobility scheme. Secondly, I want to discuss ways and means of giving the scheme the utmost publicity, so that the maximum number of beneficiaries can be located and helped. Arguments about three- or four-wheeled vehicles for the disabled are academic if we cannot find the disabled persons and help them escape from their four walls. The same argument about three- or four-wheelers and the safety of three-wheelers has led—

Mr. Joseph Dean: Along with other hon. Members, I have recently been concerned about reports dealing with the alleged lack of safety of the three-wheeler. To allay the fears of some of those who came to see me about this I was in correspondence with the Minister for Transport and the Minister for the Disabled. It was made clear by both Ministers that the three-wheeler was considered safe and reliable. Nevertheless, these rumours persisted in the Press. I was visited again by some of those who have to drive these vehicles. They said that there had been correspondence between Ministers and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Ombudsman about this, but the reply I received was quite inconclusive.


The people who came to see me implied that they had been given information that there had been further correspondence from the Department of the Environment to the Ombudsman on the matter. I ask my hon. Friend to give a final and decisive answer on the safety of these vehicles so as completely to allay the fears of the section of the public to whom they are made available that they are unsuitable.

Mr. Tierney: I am sure that my hon. Friend will give consideration to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). The argument about the safety of the three-wheeler has led to some despondency and despair among some users. They have believed that they will have to give up their three-wheelers when the new scheme commences in January of next year. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has received a letter from one of his constituents saying that he would commit suicide if he lost his vehicle. That is the kind of correspondence that some hon. Members have had. We must make it clear again tonight that those who now have a three-wheeler will continue to have such a vehicle in future, if that is what they choose. I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise that.
It is obvious to all who deal with this problem that if the three-wheeler were withdrawn many disabled persons who are now mobile would be made immobile, and confined to their four walls. What about the safety aspect? In The Guardian, in particular, there have been reports of a clash between the Transport Department and the Department of Health and Social Security about the safety of the three-wheeler. These reports have caused widespread concern, not least amongst disabled people. Will my hon. Friend comment on these reports and do what he can to clear up the matter?
There has been some misunderstanding of the Government's new mobility allowance and the other new allowances to help the disabled, particularly as regards the implementation of the Sharp Report. I understand that the report had been lying around for a considerable time when my hon. Friend took on his present job. I ask my hon. Friend why he found against

carrying out the recommendations of the Sharp Report and why it was necessary for him to opt for cash allowances instead of cars. Will he comment upon the attitude that has been expressed by the Central Council of the Disabled, and other interested organisations? Council representatives came to Birmingham to advise and consult disabled people about the mobility allowance. They came to talk to and to meet disabled people. That is much better than talking at the disabled from a distance. I can assure the Council that its action was much appreciated by disabled people in Birmingham.
I turn to the financial implications of the mobility allowance. When the attendance allowance was first introduced it was estimated that there were about 50,000 beneficiaries. I understand that the number has now increased threefold or fourfold. It is estimated that 100,000 additional people will benefit from the mobility allowance. If we find more than 100,000 will they all qualify? If we find fewer than 100,000, will we use the moneys available to improve the allowance that is given to those who qualify?
Will my hon. Friend say what amount of money is spent on mobility allowances at present, and what the estimated figure will be once the new scheme is in operation? The figure will represent almost a threefold increase—a large increase in public expenditure which I am sure will be accepted even by Opposition Members who constantly campaign for cuts in public spending.
We have been told that the first people to qualify in January next year will be those in the age group 15–25. How quickly will the other age groups follow, and if the estimated take-up does not materialise will the full implementation of this allowance take less than three years?
I am sure that everybody is extremely pleased that for the first time children will qualify for the allowance. May we be told how many children will qualify for mobility allowance? The present system allows only those who can drive a vehicle to obtain help. The fact that children will now qualify is a happy and pleasing innovation. I understand that the scheme is not tied up with the ownership of a vehicle. The allowance can be spent on all modes of transport, in-


cluding taxis, buses, aircraft, boats, or whatever it may be.
In my constituency there is a factory that employs spastic workers who live in a hostel. They are employed in the manufacture of the Newton electrified chair, which costs about £ 350. At present, most of these chairs are exported. Is that the kind of conveyance in which people who receive mobility allowance should invest their money if they choose to do so? Will the Minister give more detail about the way in which the allowance can be spent, and will he also deal with the tax situation?
A number of criticisms of the new scheme have been set out in a circular issued by the Disabled Drivers Association. That association would have done a greater service for the disabled if it had drawn attention to the many advantages of this important new scheme, rather than implying that everybody will be worse off. Does the association know how many disabled people pay tax and, if so, can they give a figure? Will taxation of the allowance affect beneficiaries as seriously as they suggest? I understand that nobody will lose any benefit which he now enjoys. I know that no scheme is perfect, and that we have a long way to go, but I hope that anybody who criticises the scheme will have the grace to acknowledge that about 100,000 of the most severely disabled people will now receive mobility help for the first time ever.
I have posed a number of questions to the Minister deliberately to get a fuller and more detailed understanding of the scheme. It will help us all to understand, advise on, and publicise the scheme and to find beneficiaries probably not yet known in their four walls. The new mobility allowance will enable many more people to become a part of society instead of being apart from society. I am sure that every hon. Member would wish to contribute to that end.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) has afforded the House a great service by raising this matter tonight. I appreciate that my hon. Friend

the Minister is in some difficulty because, owing to the expedition in the proceedings on the Employment Protection Bill, this Adjournment debate occurred somewhat earlier than usual. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to answer some of the questions posed to him this evening. I regret that the Opposition have not troubled to stay for this important debate.
The general tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks entirely accords with the difficulties faced by one of my constituents, Miss Janet Wilson, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and has done so for a number of years. She was finding difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that she had this disease and finding difficulty in regard to the public. She has been able to get out and about to a limited extent and is convinced that the sort of battery-driven electric chair mentioned by my hon. Friend would give her a greater degree of mobility.
That chair was the subject of a local newspaper report. A group of people decided to raise the money for this sort of vehicle, which would give Miss Wilson the ability to move about in pedestrianised areas without the difficulties and formalities entailed in the use of a tricycle, which is basically a road vehicle and may not be used in pedestrianised areas. This is a very generous gesture by the people concerned.
This sort of battery-driven electric chair is not available under the general scheme relating to the use of vehicles by disabled persons. I very much concur with the remarks made by my hon. Friend when he suggested to the Minister that this sort of vehicle could well be included in the general range of vehicles available to disabled persons.
As a result of the report in the Telegraph and Argus, the local newspaper concerned, I received a telephone call only yesterday from another disabled person, a married woman with four children. She also is suffering from multiple sclerosis, and she has been offered a Mini car because she comes within the category of persons entitled to that sort of vehicle. Unfortunately, she does not wish to take advantage of that opportunity. Perhaps it is fortunate in regard to the availability of such vehicles for other people. The point is that her husband already has a car.


This disabled lady telephoned because the newspaper report had said that the group was raising money for the electric battery-driven chair for Miss Wilson and that the group was contacting me. She expressed the view that this sort of battery-driven electric chair would be ideal for her needs, enabling her to go on footpaths and to do local journeys in the vicinity without the necessity for a road vehicle.
I pass this information to the Minister in the hope that he will give it due consideration—I realise that he is not able to give a detailed answer tonight because of the difficulties surrounding this debate—and treat the matter with care and consideration. He has shown over the past months that he has this degree of devotion and dedication to the cause of disabled people. That is why he was appointed as the first Minister with responsibility for the disabled.
A mobility allowance is important, of course, and the fact that it extends to people who are not able to use the existing range of vehicles will be of great benefit. But the Minister will recognise, I am sure, that very large capital expenditure is involved in obtaining a vehicle. When the range of vehicles is narrow, some people will be for ever excluded from a degree of mobility unless that sort of capital expenditure is possible. In the particular case that I have mentioned the money will, as I have said, be raised on a voluntary basis.
I should much prefer to see the Minister provide these battery-driven electric chairs as an alternative for people who can make use of them. I am sure that he will take my remarks to heart and give them consideration.
In conclusion, I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley who has raised this subject and to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me the opportunity of saying these few words.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I apologise for intervening in this Adjournment debate. I very much welcome the nature of the debate and compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) on raising it.
I put down a Question yesterday to the Minister for Transport on the figures of casualties for drivers of invalid tricycles and ordinary vehicles in Great Britain in the year 1974. No one perusing the Press over the past 12 months can fail to have been impressed by the concern felt by many people about the safety of the "trike". In some quarters what might almost be described as hysteria has been voiced that this kind of vehicle is a death trap for anyone embarking upon a journey in it. It has been suggested that the life expectancy of such a person would be reduced considerably.
My Question to the Minister for Transport sought information about the latest figures of the accident and death rates of drivers of trikes vis-à-vis those of ordinary motor vehicles, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will comment on the reply given by the Minister.
It appears from the figures that perhaps the casualty rate is somewhat lower than was feared originally, and it may be that some of the anxiety expressed was not as fully justified as was thought. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on the figures.
I want also to take this opportunity to add to the sentiments which have been expressed to my hon. Friend and to say how much we have welcomed his efforts on behalf of disabled people. Of late he has taken a great deal of stick. We should have in the forefront of our minds the great efforts made by the present Government to improve the lot of the disabled person. I welcome the mobility allowance, and I support my hon. Friend in what he is doing.
I am afraid that I have not given my hon. Friend prior notice of this point, but perhaps I might put one final question to him. A number of people in my constituency have expressed concern about the petrol consumption of the Model 70 three-wheeler. Over the past couple of months I have had complaints from constituents who say that they are getting less than 20 miles per gallon from their vehicles. Perhaps it is unfair to raise a matter of this kind without notice, but I should appreciate some comment from my hon. Friend to the effect that he will put in hand an examination of the problem. It may be that, if it is found generally that this kind of three-wheeler


is not producing the mileage which many of us would desire, something can be done mechanically to improve matters.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: As the Minister will be aware, one of my constituents has been very concerned about the safety of the invalid tricycle. For that reason, I hope very much that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to make public some of the facts. I know that a great deal of anxiety has been spread, and it would help us a great deal to know the full facts.
As for the new allowance, I think it behoves us all to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his great work in this respect. We would all like to have seen the limit extended further, and we hope that the time will come when that will be possible.
A number of my constituents have approached me about the possibility of getting help with travelling, but they have found that they are over the age limit for the allowance. I understand the present reason for the limit, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to say that he hopes in the future that it will be possible to extend it so that all disabled people may take advantage of the allowance. No one who knows about the difficulties of disabled people can fail to pay tribute to the Minister's tremendous work. It is outstanding. I have raised these points tonight in a constructive spirit. I pay tribute not only to him but to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) for raising this matter.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) has raised matters of real importance to large numbers of severely disabled people. His solicitude for the disabled, like his wholly practical concern for their welfare and status, is recognised in all parts of the House. His approach is informed not merely by good precepts but also, as he has shown tonight, by a wide personal experience of the difficulties of disabled people in contemporary society. They are daunting difficulties. I respect my hon. Friend for his practical idealism and concern in raising this extremely important subject for debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that the last 18 months has been a period of unprecedented activity in helping the disabled at a time of unprecedented economic difficulty. In addition to the advances he mentioned, we are, from 20th of next month, introducing an entirely new non-contributory invalidity pension. We are giving more money to the Rowntree Trust Family Fund to allow it to give extra help to severely handicapped children. Disabled people will benefit substantially from the general upratings in benefit levels.
I have not time here, tonight, to list all the measures which the Government have introduced to help disabled people. This help is being given not only by my own Department but in Departments right across Whitehall. I should like to pay tribute to my fellow Ministers in other Departments who have worked so closely with me in seeking to improve the welfare and enhance the status of disabled people. We have been trying not merely to extend provision but to develop a whole new philosophy on disablement.
This debate is important because it gives me the opportunity to correct one or two common misconceptions about our new mobility allowance scheme. I welcome my hon. Friend's warm support for the concept of the allowance, which will extend help to an estimated 100,000 people who, in the past, have received no outdoor mobility help whatsoever, simply because they could not, or did not want to, drive.
It has been suggested that I might have become wedded to the three-wheeler. I have not—though, at the same time, I must respect the very strong views expressed by three-wheeler drivers who have become attached to their vehicles.
My hon. Friend referred to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones)—the constituent who said that he would commit suicide if his three-wheeler was withdrawn from him, because he would be immobilised. That man's Member of Parliament is deeply concerned about the case and, as we all know, very much concerned to advance the interests of disabled people generally.
In opposition I sought many improvements in mobility help for the disabled. Anyone who looks at my statements will


see that I pressed for nothing more strongly than for help for those who are too severely disabled to drive. I attacked the anomaly of a mobility scheme that was illogically based on ability to drive rather than on the disability of the individual. Thus, I felt that as a Minister it was my first duty to help the disabled non-driver.
I am sometimes asked about my thinking on this question since I became a Minister. One of the first actions of my colleagues and my self was to publish the reports both of Lady Sharp and the Motor Industry Research Association. I then held wide-ranging consultations with disabled people. The most powerful themes that were put to me by the disabled and their organisations were those of equity and flexibility.
Having consulted as many people and organisations as possible, and considered their views, we finally decided in favour of a cash allowance. This was in accordance with the main theme of the advice we received from the disabled and their organisations. We obviously could not do everything we were asked to do or would have liked to do, but at least the cash allowance, payable to drivers and non-drivers alike and not in any way linked to ownership of a car, means equality of treatment, together with the flexibility in use that a cash allowance gives.
There are really three different types of disabled people. First, there are those who can drive, secondly, those who cannot drive or do not wish to, but can find someone to drive them, and thirdly, those who do not drive and cannot nominate a driver. I went recently to the constituency of one of my hon. Friends and met many disabled people. What struck me very forcibly was the number who cannot even operate a wheelchair, let alone a car. For them the allowance represents an extremely important breakthrough and they will, of course, be able to use the money in any way that they choose. This could well include the purchase of the powered wheelchair to which my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley referred. I know that he does a great deal of work for the disabled in his constituency. I hope that he will be reassured by what I have said about the chair that is being developed in his constituency.

I am often asked why cars will not be available to new beneficiaries in future, even in the limited categories which can receive them at present. In a scheme in which the three-wheeler was the main benefit and which was directed at drivers only there was obviously some case for special treatment for the small groups of people for whom the three-wheeler was unsuitable, though even then there were considerable difficulties in deciding and operating the categories.
In a scheme in which the primary benefit is a cash allowance, and which applies equally to drivers and non-drivers, however, it would surely be unfair to single out some drivers for special treatment. For example, the needs of a disabled woman who cannot drive, but who has sole charge of a small child for most of the day, are at least as great as those of a disabled mother who can drive. To give a car to the woman who can drive would be perpetuating both the illogicality and the inequity of the present scheme. I should like to emphasise, however, that despite the impression created by some reports which have been circulating, there is no question, under the arrangements we have announced, of withdrawing cars, three-wheelers, or the private car allowance from people who already have them, so long as they continue to meet the conditions under which they were awarded. When reading some of the criticisms which are made of our important new scheme, I often call to mind the very considerable author who wrote:
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, …nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things.
In introducing the mobility allowance we are taking the first and very important step towards introducing a new order of things in the area of mobility for disabled persons.
I very much regret that we have not found it possible to include people over pension age—60 for women and 65 for men. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both said that we hope to build on the new scheme, but our immediate priority must be to get the new scheme launched successfully. We have been forced to phase in the allowance over a three-year period, both because of the inevitable strain on medical manpower in dealing with the necessary


medical examinations for an estimated 100,000 new beneficiaries, and to spread the extra cost at this time of severe economic difficulty. We are also, as I have said, introducing other new benefits for disabled people.
The first age group for mobility allowance, those aged between 15 and 25, are now eligible to apply, with payment beginning in January next. We are trying to make sure that the existence of the allowance is as widely known as possible, by means of Press advertising and publicity through other channels, by meetings such as that with the correspondents of social services journals which I had recently, by contact with the various organisations of and for disabled people, particularly the Central Council for the Disabled, by direct advice to local authorities, including directors of social services, hospital authorities and family practitioner committees, and of course in my own speeches and those of other hon. Members.
I would urge hon. Members to use any means in their power, in speeches, in discussions in their constituencies and at their surgeries, to draw attention to the availability of the allowance and to press any disabled person who might qualify to claim as soon as his or her age group is added to those eligible.
We are talking tonight of some of the most severely disabled people in the country. They are in many ways people who are isolated within their own four walls. They are people who, for the very first time ever, will receive mobility help from the community. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of right hon. and hon. Members publicising in their constituencies the details of the new scheme.
Publicity will continue throughout the three-year phasing-in period and further advertisements will appear in the Press as each new age group is introduced. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage give very precise information on when other age groups will follow after the 15 to 25-year-old group. Much will depend on the numbers coming forward. But I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that it is our intention to move as quickly as possible, first through the age range 15 to 50, then the children aged 5 to 15, and finally those aged over 50.

Naturally, I rejoice that the new mobility allowance will give outdoor mobility help to severely disabled children for the first time ever.
My hon. Friend asked about Lady Sharp's report on mobility of physically disabled people and why we could not accept her recommendations. Fundamentally the answer is that her recommendations were too narrow. I recognise that she had been asked to make recommendations within the resources which could then be made available, but the fact is that she recommended concentrating help on people who needed a car for employment or to contribute to the support of their families. She excluded the rest. Only 15,000 additional people would have benefited. The mobility allowance will benefit 100,000 additional people; and Lady Sharp now says that she prefers cash to cars. In deciding to go for a radically different solution I was strongly influenced by my consultation with disabled people and their organisations who gave me their own views on Lady Sharp's report.
Our proposals when fully in operation will treble the present spending of about £ 13 million a year on mobility help. We expect to be spending £39 million when our new scheme is in full operation.
I have also been asked how we have arrived at our estimate of 100,000 potential new beneficiaries under the scheme. I have always made clear that it can be no more than a best guess; but it is not simply a figure plucked out of the air. We have over 50,000 beneficiaries under the present vehicle service, and, judging by the take-up rate in the area where it is highest, we judge that there could be half as many again who could claim but do not do so.
A study of the survey of handicapped and impaired in Great Britain carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggested that there could be a further 100,000 non-drivers within the age limits who will qualify. Independent estimates based on Family Fund data put the number of children likely to qualify among the 100,000 at upwards of 30,000. This answers a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley. If there are more than 100,000 who qualify, they will, of course, all receive the allowance. Should there be fewer than 100,000, we shall be able to proceed more rapidly with


our phasing-in and then consider that much sooner what our next step might be.
I must, however, stress again that our figures are no more than informed guesses. We are very conscious of the possible range of error, remembering as we do the extent to which the original attendance allowance estimates differed from actual experience. There are today four times as many people receiving one or other of the two attendance allowances than were thought likely to be the number of beneficiaries when the first attendance allowance was introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley mentioned the views of the organisations representing disabled people. I can only say that, to judge from copies of letters to the Press which have been sent to me by Mr. George Wilson, Director of the Central Council for the Disabled, Mr. Peter Large, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled—which represents 26 other national organisations for the disabled—by Dr. Adrian Stokes, of the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, by Mr. Peter Mitchell, a researcher who assists the all-party Disablement Group in this House, and by Mr. Duncan Guthrie, of Action Research for the Crippled Child, the major organisations have all welcomed the principle of a mobility allowance.
Let me expand a little on this, because all these are people of great experience and knowledge of the problems of the disabled people. Duncan Guthrie has stressed in particular that
for the first time ever, the mobility needs of handicapped children have been recognised".
The mobility allowance will, as he says,
give disabled youngsters an opportunity to get out and about during their formative years instead of being virtually incarcerated in their homes".
This must be an important step forward.
Dr. Adrian Stokes presses for improvements on many points of detail, but on the main issue of introducing the mobility allowance he writes:
I feel that it is completely correct in principle, particularly since it removes the indefensible anomaly of the disabled passenger.
Naturally they would all have liked us to do more—we should ourselves have greatly liked to do much more—but in the present daunting financial situation we have had to go more slowly than we

should have wished. We have nevertheless achieved, I am sure, a major breakthrough in bringing help for the first time to disabled non-drivers, including many of the most severely disabled of all, whether they are at home, in residential accommodation or, in some cases, in hospitals.
Now let me say something about the invalid tricycle, and in particular about its safety. That is not the main subject of this debate, but it is a matter of serious and continuing concern. There have been allegations of conflict between Government colleagues on this issue. These allegations were firmly rebutted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in a speech to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on 14th October. What he actually said was:
The Parliamentary Commissioner said in his report that the Department of the Environment saw no case for banning the invalid tricycle on safety grounds. That was the evidence we gave; it remains our view today. In all this there is complete unanimity between our selves and the DHSS".

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, wihout Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and I are continuing to co-operate closely to do all that is possible to help those who use the tricycle to drive it in safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) referred to his correspondence with me about the reported divergence of views between the Department of the Environment and my Department. I hope he will be reassured by the quotation which I have given from the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
As we have made clear many times, the Government have no wish to cover up any information about the tricycle. On the contrary, I am continuing to publish information in full as it becomes available. We have published far more information about the three-wheeler than any previous Government have done. We started in March 1974 by publishing three reports by the Motor Industry Research Association and a full


and fair synopsis of a fourth report. Hon. Members will recall that earlier this year we published that report in full, omitting only commercially confidential passages about other vehicles. We have also produced new and detailed analyses of our information on accidents to three-wheelers, and made them available to disabled people's organisations and to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are known to be particularly interested. In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), I have given particulars of accidents involving invalid tricycles in the 12 months ending 30th September 1975.
I am studying this further information urgently in consultation with experts at the Department of the Environment and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Other information which has just become available in the form of a reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and Eccles gives a more up-to-date picture than was available to the Parliamentary Commissioner earlier this year of the comparative accident records of invalid tricycles and cars in general. It shows that the incidence of injury among tricycle drivers is three times that of cars in general. This difference, regrettable as it is to me, is somewhat less adverse than the earlier figures showing 4·2 times the accident rate given to the Parliamentry Commissioner.
I have been asked whether a speed limit on invalid tricycles has been considered. Of course I recognise that this is a possible approach, but it is not an easy matter. The analysis of statements made by invalid tricycle drivers involved in accidents in 1973–74 suggests that in only 24 per cent. of accidents involving Model 70s, and only 11 per cent. of accidents involving older models, was the speed immediately before the accident greater than 30 miles per hour. Drivers can, of course, be mistaken in their estimates. We cannot ignore the fact that the incidence of accidents is greater with the Model 70 than with its slower predecessor, in spite of the Model 70 being more stable, and generally—as its critics readily acknowledge—a better vehicle than

earlier models. I shall consult my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, and if expert opinion is that a special speed limit on tricycles would reduce accidents we shall give that opinion the most careful consideration.
I should like to make one more point on the invalid tricycle. Following criticisms of the maintenance arrangements in an article in Drive magazine, I have invited representatives of disabled drivers and of the approved repairers who service these vehicles to join with my officials in a committee to study ways of improving the arrangements and to maintain a continuing watch on them. I have had an encouraging response to these invitations, for which I am grateful to all the organisations concerned, and I am sure this will help us towards achieving a high standard of maintenance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who raised a matter of considerable importance to his constituents, was kind enough to say that he knew I would look at the matter with care and consideration. I assure him that I shall also look at it with urgency to see what I can do to help.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a commutation scheme. I appreciate that if the recipient of the mobility allowance were able to commute that allowance it would make it easier for him to purchase a car. My hon. Friend and the House may be interested to know that the Central Council for the Disabled established a working party on the mobility allowance which has been considering the possibility of a commutation scheme. I cannot speak for the council about the progress of its consideration of this important aspect of the debate, but I know that George Wilson and his colleagues will do whatever they can to ensure that the disabled get the best value for money, however they spend the mobility allowance. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend at the earliest possible opportunity regarding the points that he has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South touched on the reply by the Minister for Transport on comparative accident statistics. I referred to that matter earlier. My hon. Friend also referred to the performance and petrol consumption of the three-wheeler. I shall


carefully consider the remarks he made and send him a full reply at the earliest possible date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who takes a considerable personal interest in this subject, as I know from visiting his constituency, expressed his interest in gaining the truth about accident statistics. I hope that what I have said and what was disclosed in the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport will help him to examine further this whole question of accident statistics.
This has been an important debate and-and I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who have participated in it. I am seeking to liberate disabled people from their isolation. I believe that the mobility allowance is an important breakthrough for large numbers of the disabled. I welcome all that has been said about the principle of the allowance.

ROYAL HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL, WINCHESTER

10.10 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The early finishing of business today seems to present an opportunity for hon. Members to raise other subjects on the Adjournment. I know that this should not be done unless the Minister is prepared to listen and make a brief reply. I wonder whether the Minister who has just replied to the previous debate would be prepared to do this if I raised the subject of a hospital in Winchester?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I had only a few minutes' notice of the hon. and gallant Member's intention to raise this matter. If he wishes to make points about the hospital in Winchester, I have no doubt the House will listen, but he will not expect me to make a considered reply. I would not wish to prevent any hon. Member raising a matter of importance to him self if parliamentary time is available. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, however, that since we have had no notice of the debate I cannot be expected to give the kind of reply my Department would have wanted to give if we had been given notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): According to "Erskine May", due notice must be given to a Minister, and it is normal to deprecate the occasions when notice has not been given. However, in view of what the Minister has said, if he is willing to listen to the hon. and gallant Member, the Chair is quite in order in allowing this to happen.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for listening to this short debate about the Royal Hampshire Hospital, in Winchester. I quite understand that he will not be able to give me a full and considered reply, and I am fortunate that this is a subject which is the concern of his Department, though not of him personally. I shall be extremely brief, because I have no wish to keep the staff of the House very long. I know they have had a tremendous bashing in the middle watches on recent nights.
I had hoped to raise this subject in the debate on Monday, but I was unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The main hospital building in Winchester is more than 100 years old and the hutted wards were built for the large number of casualties expected on D-Day in 1944. I have a long report, which sets out the situation in the hospital and says that the overcrowding is so bad and that beds are so close together in some wards that apparatus needed to deal with urgently sick cases will not fit between the beds. If there is a sudden emergency, beds have to be shifted to allow the apparatus to be moved in. In the intensive care ward, which is a very important department of any hospital, doctors have to interview relatives of urgently sick patients in the corridors, amid the hustle and bustle of ordinary hospital life.
I have a photograph here, a copy of which has already been forwarded to the Department, showing a ceiling which had fallen down in a patients' waiting room and admission office which, fortunately, was empty at the time. The main point is that when conditions like this exist in our hospitals the Government must be hard put to justify their decision not to continue the system which provides £40 million in fees each year from pay beds.
On the wider issues affecting this hospital, the doctors are worried about their pay. Everyone worries about pay in these


days of inflation, but the doctors are more worried about their conditions in the hospital, and about their clinical freedom. They have been telling me that if pay beds are abolished and private patients have to go to other hospitals, even if the doctors retain their clinical freedom to treat the private patients they will be spending all their valuable time in traffic jams rather than at the bedsides of their patients.
One of the senior consultants in Winchester told me that Government policy was sheer politics, and to hell with sickness. I wondered whether he might be over-excited, but after giving the matter some thought, I came to the conclusion that he was right. Taxpayers who belong to non-contributory schemes now find that they have been assessed on the contributions paid on their behalf by their employers under legislation introduced by the Chancellor in his Budget earlier this year. This is a deplorable indication of the politics overlying this matter.
I would have liked to ask the Secretary of State for her view on the recent Press reports that the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers had been advising their members to object to planning applications, for instance, to turn country houses into nursing homes. I know that the Minister cannot answer these points tonight, but I hope that he will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the debate so that I may have an answer from her.
We are told that we should attack the measures and not the men—or, in this

case, woman—and I pay heed to that wise maxim. It is, however, a tragedy that in the very difficult circumstances of the National Health Service, and in the considerable economic problems which face it, the doctors should feel that they have nobody to go to. They have no confidence in the Secretary of State, to whom they should be able to turn.

10.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the points which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Had my hon. Friend the Minister of State known about the debate he would certainly have wanted to be here. In those circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have had a very full reply. I assure him that he will receive, at the earliest opportunity, a letter from my Department dealing with the points he raised. There is very little that I can say at the moment, except that I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that it is impossible to reply to points of detail at such short notice. I am glad that he has been able to speak on a matter which is clearly of great constituency importance to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.